V 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/syntaxofdecivitaOOcolb 


V 


/ 


SEP  3  0 ' 


V  > 


O' 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 

PATRISTIC  STUDIES 
VOL,  IV 


THE  SYNTAX  OF  THE  DE  CIVITATE  DEI  OF 

ST.  AUGUSTINE 


&  ^Dissertation 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  CATHOLIC  SISTERS  COLLEGE  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY 
OF  AMERICA,  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


/ 

L 


SISTER  MARY  COLUMKILLE  COLBERT,  M.  A. 


OF  THE 

Sisters  of  Charity  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  San  Antonio,  Texas 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

1923 


SELECT  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


I.  Texts  and  Translations. 

Blampin,  Th. ;  Coustant,  P.;  etc.,  Opera  Omnia  S.  Augustini,  11  Vols., 
Paris,  1679-1700. 

Dombart,  B.,  De  Civitate  Dei,  Leipzig,  Vol.  I,  1921 ;  Vol.  II,  1918. 
Hoffmann,  E.,  De  Civitate  Dei  in  Corpus  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum 
Latinorum,  Prague,  1899-1900,  Vols.  401  402. 

Dods,  M.,  The  City  of  God,  Edinburg,  1871. 

Healey,  J.,  The  City  of  God,  Edinburg,  1909. 

Schaff,  P.,  Tbe  City  of  God,  New  York,  1907. 

II.  Histories  of  Literature. 

Bardenliewer,  O.,  Patrologie,  Freiburg  i  Breisgau,  1910. 

Bouchier,  E.  S.,  Life  and  Letters  in  Roman  Africa,  Oxford,  1913. 

Boissier,  G.,  L’Afrique  Romaine,  Paris,  1895. 

De  Labriolle,  P.,  Histoire  de  la  litterature  latine  chretienne,  Paris,  1920. 
Ebert,  G.,  Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1874. 

Monceaux,  M.,  Histoire  litteraire  de  l’Afrique  Chretienne,  Paris,  1901. 
Schanz,  M.,  Romische  Litter aturgeschichte,  Munich,  1920. 

Teuffel,  W.  S.,  Geschichte  der  Romischen  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1870. 

III.  Biographical. 

Bindemann,  C.,  Der  hi.  Augustinus,  3  Vols,  Berlin,  1844-55-69. 

Collette,  C.  H.,  Saint  Augustine  (A.  D.  3S7-430).  A  sketch  of  his  life 
and  writings  as  affecting  the  controversy  with  Rome,  London,  1S83. 
Hatzfeld,  A.,  Saint  Augustin  (Les  Saints,  II),  3rd  Ed.,  Paris,  1897. 
Hertling,  G.  von,  Augustin,  Mainz,  1902. 

Kloth,  Der  hi.  Kirchenvater  Augustinus,  2  Vols.,  Achen,  1839. 

Tillemont,  Lenain  de,  Memoires  pour  servir  a  l’histoire  ecclesiastique,  Vol. 
13,  Vie  de  S.  Augustin,  Paris,  1710. 

Weiskotten,  H.,  Vita  S.  Augustini  scripta  a  Possidio  episcopo,  Oxford, 
1919.  (This  work  by  Augustine’s  pupil  with  the  Confessions  form 
the  main  ancient  sources  for  Augustine’s  life.) 

IV.  Latinity. 

(a) 

Bayard,  L.,  Le  Latin  de  ,S.  Cyprien,  Paris,  1902. 

Bonnet,  M.,  Le  Latin  de  Gregoire  de  Tours,  Paris,  1890. 

Brenous,  J.,  Etude  sur  les  hellenismes  dans  la  syntaxe  Latine,  Paris,  1895. 
Cooper,  F.  T.,  Word  Formation  in  the  Roman  Sermo  Plebeius,  New  York, 
1895. 

Delachaux,  A.,  La  Latinity  d’Ausone,  Neuehatel,  1909. 

Devogel,  L.,  Etude  sur  la  latinite  et  le  style  de  Paulin  de  Pella,  Bruxelles, 
1898. 

Gabarrou,  F.,  Le  latin  d’Arnobe,  Paris,  1921. 

Goelzer,  H.  (1),  Etude  lexicographique  et  grammaticale  de  la  latinite  de 
S.  Jerome,  Paris,  1884. 

Goelzer,  H.  (2),  Le  Latin  de  S.  Avit,  Paris,  1909. 

Groehl,  F.,  De  syntaxi  Firmiciana,  Vratislaviae,  191 S. 

Guillemin,  A.,  La  preposition  “  de  ”  dans  la  litterature  latine  et  en  par- 
ticulier  dans  la  poesie  latine  de  Lucrece  &  Ausone,  Paris,  N.  D. 
Hassenstein,  G.,  De  syntaxi  Ammiani  Marcellini,  Regimontanus,  1877. 
Hatfield,  J.  T.,  A  Study  of  Juvencus,  Bonn,  1890. 


Ill 


1Y 


Hoppe,  H.,  De  Sermone  Tertullianeo,  Marburg,  1897. 

Jepson,  Rev.  J.  J.,  The  Latinity  of  the  Vulgate  Psalter,  Washington,  1915. 
Juret,  Etude  graanmaticale  sur  le  latin  de  Filastrius,  Erlangen,  1904. 
Kaulen,  F.,  Sprachliches  Handbuch  zur  biblischen  Vulgata,  Freiburg,  1904. 
Hoffmann,  Geschicbte  des  Kirchenlateins,  Breslau,  1881. 

Krebs-Schmalz,  Antibarbarus  der  lateinischen  Sprache,  Basel,  1905. 

Koziol,  H.,  Der  Sti'l  des  Apuleius,  Wien,  1872. 

Lease,  E.  B.,  A  Syntatic,  Stylistic  and  Metrical  study  of  Prudentius,  Bal¬ 
timore,  1895. 

Meader,  Latin  pronouns,  New  York,  1901. 

Mueller,  M.,  De  Apollinaris  Sidonii  latinitate  observationes  ad  etymologiam, 
syntaxim,  vocabulorum  apparatum  spectantes,  Halle,  1888. 

Nestler,  J.  von,  Die  latinitat  des  Fulgentius,  Leipa,  1905. 

Neue,  F.,  and  Wagener,  €.,  Formenlehre  der  lateinischen  Sprache,  Leipzig, 
1902. 

Quillacq,  J.  A.,  Ouomodo  Latina  Lingua  usus  sit  S.  Hilarius,  Tours,  1903. 
Konsch,  Itala  and  vulgata,  Marburg,  1869. 

(b) 

Draeger,  A.,  Historische  syntax  der  lateinischen  Sprache,  Leipzig,  1881. 
Kiihiier,  R.,  Ausfiirliche  Grammatik  der  lateinischen  Sprache,  Hanover, 
1878-1879. 

Lane,  G.  M.,  A  Latin  Grammar,  New  York,  1903. 

Riemann  and  Goelzer,  Grammaire  comparee  du  Grec  et  du  Latin  (Syntax), 
Paris,  1897. 

Solonius,  A.  H.,  Vitae  Patrum,  Lund,  1920. 

Stolz^Schmalz,  Lateinische  Grammatik,  Munich,  1910. 

N.  B.  These  works  will  be  cited  throughout  by  the  author’s  name  alone. 


PREFACE. 


The  purpose  of  this  dissertation  is  to  present  a  complete  survey 
of  the  syntactical  phenomena  occurring  in  St.  Augustine’s  De 
Civitate  Dei  which  stamp  it  as  a  product  of  ecclesiastical  Latin. 
Accordingly,  note  will  be  taken  not  only  of  clearly  defined  diver¬ 
gencies  from  classical  Latin,  but  also  of  such  constructions  as 
actually  appear  even  in  the  Golden  Age  but  which  are  used  to  a 
greater  extent  or  with  a  slightly  different  connotation.  We  are 
well  aware  of  that  philological  truth,  that  the  language  of  one 
period  is  in  itself  no  better  than  the  language  of  another;  that 
the  changes  which  occur  in  the  syntax  of  any  language  are  largely 
a  matter  of  psychology,  due  in  the  main  to  the  new  surroundings 
in  which  a  writer  is  living  and  to  the  new  ideas  which  he  finds 
himself  called  upon  to  express.  Accordingly  we  have  no  such  aim 
as  to  show  the  poor  or  the  good  qualities  of  the  syntax  of  the  De 
Civitate  Dei.  We  are  merely  taking  account  of  certain  character¬ 
istics  appearing  in  it,  with  a  view  to  contributing  something  to  a 
much  larger  work  on  the  Latinity  of  St.  Augustine’s  writings  as 
a  whole. 

In  order  to  avoid  all  inexact  and  unbalanced  impressions,  sta¬ 
tistics  will  be  given  wherever  possible  showing  the  exact  extent  of 
any  peculiarity.  Comparisons  will  also  be  made,  according  as 
available  information  permits,  to  the  syntactical  usage  of  other 
representative  authors  of  ecclesiastical  Latin. 

The  general  order  of  treatment  is  that  followed  by  the  Latein- 
ische  Grammatik  of  iStolz-Schmalz.  The  text  of  the  De  Civitate 
Dei  which  has  been  used  is  that  of  B.  Dombart  in  the  Teubner 
series. 

To  Dr.  Roy  Joseph  Deferrari,  Head  of  the  Departments  of  Greek 
and  Latin  at  the  Catholic  University  of  America,  at  whose  sug¬ 
gestion  the  study  was  undertaken  and  under  whose  direction  this 
monograph  has  been  written,  the  author  wishes  to  acknowledge  her 
indebtedness  and  to  express  her  grateful  appreciation  of  the  assist¬ 
ance  and  encouragement  given  throughout  the  work.  Acknowl¬ 
edgment  is  also  made  to  Dr.  Romanus  Butin,  S.  M.,  and  Rev. 
J.  P.  Christopher,  both  of  the  Catholic  University  of  America,  for 
having  read  the  manuscript  and  having  offered  many  valuable 
suggestions. 

Sister  Mary  Columkille. 

Feast  of  the  Annunciation, 

March  25,  1923. 


v 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

SELECT  BIBLIOGRAPHY .  iii 

PREFACE  .  v 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS . vii 

INTRODUCTION  .  1 

CHAPTER  I.— SUBSTANTIVES .  5 

i.  Substantives  used  Adjectively .  5 

ii.  Gender .  6 

in.  Number  .  6 

1.  Concrete  terms .  7 

2.  Abstract  terms .  9 

iv.  Cases  .  10 

1.  Accusative .  11 

2.  Genitive  .  12 

3.  Dative .  15 

4.  Ablative  .  16 

CHAPTER  II. — ADJECTIVES .  19 

I.  Adjectives  used  as  Substantives .  19 

ii.  Adjectives  for  Genitives  of  Possession .  22 

m.  Degrees  of  Comparison .  23 

iv.  Exceptional  Uses .  23 

CHAPTER  III.— PRONOUNS .  26 

i.  Personal .  26 

ii.  Relative  .  27 

iii.  Reflexive  .  27 

iv.  Demonstrative  .  28 

1.  Is,  hie,  iste,  ille .  28 

v.  Indefinite .  31 

1.  Quisquam,  aliquis,  ullus .  31 

2.  Quispiam  .  32 

3.  Quicumque  .  32 

4.  Quisquis,  quisque .  33 

5.  Uterque  .  33 

vi.  Pronominal  Adjectives .  34 

1.  Tantus,  quantus,  tot,  quot .  34 

2.  Alter,  alius .  35 

CHAPTER  IV.— ADVERBS .  36 

i.  Adverbs  of  Place .  36 

vii 


Vlll 


ii.  Adverbs  of  Time . , .  37 

hi.  Adverbs  of  Manner .  37 

iv.  Adverbs  of  Quantity .  38 

v.  Adverbs  of  Modality .  39 

1.  Interrogative  .  39 

2.  Negative  .  40 

CHAPTER  V.— THE  VERB.  VOICE  AND  TENSE .  42 

i.  Voice  .  42 

1.  TJse  of  the  passive  voice .  42 

2.  Transitive  verbs  taken  absolutely .  43 

3.  Deponent  verbs  used  in  a  passive  sense .  43 

ii.  Tense  .  44 

1.  Tenses  in  independent  clauses .  44 

(a)  Future  perfect  for  simple  future .  45 

(b)  Perfect  infinitive  for  present .  45 

(e)  Pluperfect  for  perfect  or  imperfect .  46 

2.  TensC  in  dependent  clauses .  47 

CHAPTER  VI.— THE  VERB.  MOODS .  48 

i.  Imperative  . ' .  49 

li.  Indicative  .  49 

1.  In  indirect  questions . 49 

2.  In  relative  clauses  of  characteristic .  49 

3.  In  subordinate  clauses  in  indirect  statements .  50 

4.  With  quia  and  quod  for  the  accusative  and  infinitive  50 

5.  Forsitan,  fortasse  and  fortassi-s .  51 

6.  In  causal  relative  clauses .  52 

iii.  Subjunctive  .  52 

1.  In  prohibitions .  52 

2.  With  absit .  53 

(a)  As  an  intensive  optative  subjunctive .  53 

(b)  As  an  equivalent  of  tantum  abest .  53 

3.  Concessive  clauses  with  quamquam .  54 

4.  Concessive  clauses  with  quamvis .  54 

5.  With  quia,  quod,  and  quoniam  for  the  accusative  and 

infinitive  .  55 

iv.  Infinitive  .  56 

1.  As  subject .  56 

2.  Purpose  .  56 

3.  With  adjectives .  57 

4.  With  verbs .  58 

CHAPTER  VII. — THE  VERB.  SUBSTANTIVE  AND  ADJEC¬ 
TIVAL  FORM  OF  THE  VERB .  61 

i.  Participles  . 61 

1.  Present  .  61 

(a)  Used  substantively .  61 


IX 


(b)  As  predicate  with  copula .  63 

(c)  For  postquam  clause .  63 

(d)  For  ablative  of  the  gerund .  64 

2.  Future  .  64 

(a)  As  attributive  adjective  and  as  substantive....  64 

(b)  Purpose  .  65 

3.  Perfect  passive .  65 

ii.  Gerund  .  66 

1.  Genitive  .  66 

2.  Accusative .  67 

3.  Ablative  .  67 

in.  Gerundive  .  68 

iv.  Supine  .  69 

CHAPTER  VIII.— PREPOSITIONS  .  71 

i.  With  the  Accusative  .  71 

1.  ad  .  71 

2.  apud  .  73 

3.  ante  .  75 

4.  post  .  75 

5.  iuxta  .  76 

6.  ob  . •  •  76 

7.  propter  .  77 

8.  circa  .  77 

9.  secundum  .  78 

10.  per  .  78 

ii.  With  the  Ablative .  79 

1.  a  or  ab .  79 

2.  de  .  80 

3.  e  or  ex .  83 

4.  cum  .  84 

5.  absque  .  85 

nr.  With  the  Accusative  and  Ablative .  85 

1.  With  the  accusative;  in .  85 

2.  With  the  ablative;  in .  87 

CHAPTER  IX . — CON JUN CTION S .  88 

i.  Quod,  quia,  quoniam .  88 

ii.  Quamdiu  .  90 

hi.  Quamvis,  quamquam .  91 

iv.  Dum  .  91 

v.  TJt .  92 

vt.  Licet  .  94 

vn.  Quamlibet  . •  . .  94 

viii.  Si  . 95 

1.  Past  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  with  im¬ 
perfect  subjunctive  in  both  protasis  and  apodosis  96 


X 


2.  Past  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  with 

protasis  in  imperfect  for  pluperfect  subjunctive .  .  96 

3.  Past  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  with 

apodosis  in  imperfect  for  pluperfect  subjunctive. .  97 

4.  Present  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  ivith 

protasis  in  pluperfect  for  imperfect  subjunctive . .  97 

5.  Future  simple  conditional  sentences .  98 

x.  Nisi  .  98 

CHAPTER  X.— SUMMARY  .  99 

\ 


INTRODUCTION. 


Ecclesiastical  Latin. 

To  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  understanding  of  ecclesiastical  Latin 
we  must  consider  its  source  in  the  original  language  of  Latiurn 
known  as  the  prisca  Latinitas.  From  this  was  derived  the  sermo 
plebeius,  which  is  neither  the  parent  nor  descendent  of  classic 
Latin  but  one  of  two  concurrent  streams  which  originated  from 
the  pristine  language  of  the  Romans. 

With  the  earliest  development  of  a  national  literature  a  differ¬ 
entiation  began  between  the  cultured  and  the  popular  speech.  In 
the  third  century  B.  C.,  Ennius  with  other  writers,  and  later  the 
members  of  the  literary  aristocracy  of  the  Scipionic  circle,  under¬ 
took  to  enrich  the  language  with  Greek  embellishments.  The 
attempt  was  encouraged  by  the  literary  coteries  of  Rome,  and, 
under  the  combined  influence  of  the  political  and  intellectual 
aristocracy,  classical  Latin  which  reached  its  zenith  in  Cicero  was 
developed.  At  the  same  time,  along  divergent  lines  grew  the  other 
branch  of  the  Latin  language,  the  sermo  plebeius,  developing 
according  to  the  natural  laws  of  a  living  language.  In  as  far  as 
the  classical  Latin  was  more  and  more  highly  and  artificially 
developed,  in  so  far  did  the  chasm  between  the  two  grow  greater. 
Nevertheless,  the  exigencies  of  daily  life  brought  the  political  and 
literary  elements  of  Roman  life  into  constant  and  continual  touch 
with  the  uneducated  masses,  and  from  the  reciprocal  influence 
resulted  a  third  idiom,  a  medley  of  the  two,  viz.,  the  sermo  urbanus, 
vdiich  became  in  the  time  of  Cicero  synonymous  with  the  highest 
type  of  excellence  in  Latin  speech.  After  classical  Latin  had 
reached  its  culmination  and  had  come  to  an  early  end,  the  sermo 
urbanus  found  its  way  into  literature,  where  blended  with  the 
provincialisms  from  Spain,  Gaul  and  Africa,  it  produced  nothing 
worthy  of  the  name  of  classic  after  the  writings  of  Seneca. 

It  wras  the  sermo  plebeius  which  was  carried  into  the  conquered 
provinces  chiefly  by  the  conquering  soldiers  as  well  as  by  others 
attracted  to  the  colonies  for  one  reason  or  another.  Through  the 
non-military  element,  this  sermo  plebeius  received  a  classic  or 
archaic  touch,  but  it  retained  within  itself  the  germ  of  life,  chang¬ 
ing  constantly  and  developing  without  restraint.  Thus  in  this 
lc  1 


2 


process  of  development  we  see  in  the  sermo  pleheius  two  opposing 
features,  a  conservatism  for  the  old  and  a  receptivity  for  the  new. 
These  are  of  primary  importance  in  accounting  for  the  growth  of 
the  local  variations  in  provincial  Latin. 

With  the  spread  of  Christianity,  Christian  writers,  of  whom 
many  were  trained  in  the  rhetorical  schools  flourishing  in  the 
provinces,  had  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  spoken  language;  and 
thus  the  basis  of  their  writings  was  the  sermo  pleheius  which  had 
been  carried  by  the  Romans  into  all  the  conquered  provinces. 

At  first  sight  it  may  seem  strange  that  Christian  writing  did 
not  begin  at  Rome.  This  may  be  accounted  for  from  the  fact  that 
Christianity  was  strongly  persecuted  in  the  capital.  Furthermore 
the  Christian  community  at  Rome  was  Greek-speaking.  After  the 
civil  wars,  when  the  old  Roman  families  died  out,  Greek  had  become 
the  language  of  the  educated  classes,  and  the  most  famous  Latin 
writers  of  this  age  are  to  be  found  not  in  Italy  but  in  Spain  and 
Africa.  By  this  time  Latin  had  ceased  to  be  national.  It  had 
become  the  language  of  the  Empire.  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Roman 
church  in  Greek;  St.  Clement,  when  addressing  the  Corinthians, 
wrote  in  Greek;  and  we  find  Greek  in  the  earliest  inscriptions  of 
the  Catacombs.  Not  until  the  end  of  the  second  century  was 
Latin  used  in  the  Roman  church. 

About  this  time  ecclesiastical  Latin  came  into  existence.  Its 
precise  date  is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Some  maintain  that 
Tertullian  is  the  father  of  ecclesiastical  Latin,  but  it  is  an  accepted 
fact  that  the  first  Christian  writing  in  Latin  is  a  translation  of 
the  Bible  which  existed  before  the  time  of  Tertullian.  When, 
where  and  by  whom  this  translation  was  made  are  questions  which 
the  writers  of  the  period  itself  were  unable  to  determine.  Augustine 
himself  admits  the  uncertainty  of  the  translators  and  the  times, 
“  Qui  scripturas  ex  Hebraea  lingua  in  Graecam  verterunt  numerari 
possunt,  Latini  autem  interpretes  nullo  modo.  Et  enim  cuique 
primis  fidei  temporibus  in  manus  venit  codex  Graecus  et  ali- 
quantulum  facultatis  sibi  utriusque  linguae  habere  videbatur,  ausus 
est  interpretari  ”  (De  Doctrina  Christiana  II,  11). 

The  following  were  the  influencing  factors  in  the  formation  and 
development  of  ecclesiastical  Latin. 

I.  The  colloquial  language.  Colloquial  Latin  had  for  its  basic 
content  the  sermo  plebeius,  which  is  not  a  resultant  of  classic 
Latin,  but  a  descendent  of  the  prisca  Latinitas,  a  fact  which  ac¬ 
counts  for  the  archaisms  so  prevalent  in  ecclesiastical  Latin.  The 


3 


degree  of  archaism  present  in  the  idioms  of  the  separate  Roman 
provinces  can  almost  determine  their  date  of  conquest. 

II.  The  Scriptures.  In  the  refutations  of  their  opponents,  the 
Latin  Fathers  sought  arguments  from  that  fundamental  document, 
the  Bible.  Their  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures  is 
clearly  evident  in  their  writings.  Thus  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
idioms  in  which  the  Latin  Scriptures  abound  must  have,  in  spite 
of  conscious  efforts  in  opposition,  influenced  their  thought  and 
writing. 

III.  Classical  Latin.  The  influence  of  classical  Latin  as  taught 
in  the  schools  of  rhetoric  which  the  Fathers  attended,  almost  un¬ 
consciously  adorns  their  style. 

To  these  influences  we  may  add  that  of  Tertullian,  an  original 
writer  with  an  independent  type  of  genius. 

In  general  there  abounds  in  ecclesiastical  Latin  a  simplicity  of 
style,  an  absence  of  artificiality,  a  naivety  of  structure,  a  care¬ 
lessness  of  grammatical  rules,  but  a  positive  effort  toward  directness 
and  ready  intelligibility.  Augustine  expressly  says,  “  Saepe  enim 
et  verba  non  Latina  dico,  ut  vos  intellegatis ;  melius  est  repre¬ 
hen  dant  nos  grammatici  quam  non  intellegant  populi”  (Ps. 
CXXXVIII,  20). 

The  essential  differences  between  the  syntax  of  ecclesiastical  and 
classical  Latin  as  thus  far  determined  by  the  research  in  the 
Latinity  of  the  period  are  the  following:  a  more  frequent  use  of 
abstract  terms;  case  usage  applied  with  less  precision;  adjectives 
lavishly  used  instead  of  substantives;  a  confusion  in  the  use  of 
pronouns;  change  of  meaning  in  adverbs;  the  neglect  of  classical 
precision  in  tense;  the  subjunctive  used  for  the  indicative  and 
vice  versa;  the  substitution  of  quia quod  and  quoniam  with  a  finite 
mood  for  the  accusative  and  infinitive  in  indirect  statements;  the 
extension  of  the  quod  construction  to  clauses  where  an  ut  sub¬ 
stantive  clause  would  be  used  in  classical  Latin;  the  infinitive  to 
express  purpose;  a  more  extensive  use  of  the  participle;  the  use 
of  a  periphrasis  especially  with  forms  of  esse  and  habere ,  equiva¬ 
lent  to  a  periphrastic  conjugation;  prepositions  with  nouns  used 
instead  of  simple  cases;  changes  in  meaning  and  an  extension  in 
the  use  of  prepositions ;  and  changes  in  meaning  and  an  extension 
in  the  use  of  conjunctions. 

The  differences  are  by  no  means  slight.  In  fact  a  thorough 
appreciation  of  the  same  is  of  fundamental  importance  for  an 


4 


accurate  understanding  of  the  great  literary  legacy  of  the  Fathers. 
Much  has  already  been  done  in  the  study  of  ecclesiastical  Latin, 
but  much  more  remains  to  be  completed  before  anything  like  a 
comprehensive  grammar  of  ecclesiastical  Latin  can  be  written.  It 
is  hoped  that  the  present  study  of  the  syntax  of  the  greatest 
masterpiece  of  ecclesiastical  Latin,  the  De  Civitate  Dei  of  St. 
Augustine,  will  contribute  something  towards  this  end. 


CHAPTER  I— SU3STANTIVES. 


Various  modifications  of  substantives,  including  the  frequent 
use  of  certain  rare  classical  forms,  occur  in  ecclesiastical  Latin. 
In  the  D.  C.  D.  of  Augustine  we  find  the  following  modifications: 

i.  Substantives  Used  Adjectively. 

'Substantives  denoting  agency  in  tor  and  sor  with  the  feminine 
endings  in  trix  and  strix  are  used  with  the  function  of  adjectives 
by  the  writers  of  the  Classical  period.  The  authors  of  the  Empire 
extended  this  usage  and  in  their  works  we  find  such  expressions 
as,  sed  advenas  Italiae  cultores,  Livy,  XXI,  30,  8;  advenas  reges, 
IV,  3,  13;  exercitum  alienigenam ,  XXVIII,  42,  10;  hostis  alieni - 
gena ,  XIX,  10,  5;  indigenae  Fauni,  Verg.  Aen.  VIII,  314;  pueri 
servi,  Val.  Max.  VIII,  1,  12;  puerum  histrionem,  I,  1,  16. 

Some  have  even  used  substantives  for  neuter  adjectives.  The 
following  instances  may  be  cited:  indigena  vino ,  PI,  n.  h.  XIV, 
6,  8,  72,  minium,  adulterum ,  33,  7,  37. 

This  usage,  viz.  substantives  used  adjectively,  occurs  with  much 
freedom  in  the  writers  1  of  the  Christian  period,  but  only  to  a 
limited  extent  in  Augustine.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  pas¬ 
sages  occur,  thus :  Et  haec  non  ab  alienigenis  hostibus,  I,  5.  .  .  . 
nisi  raptae  illae  laceratis  crinibus  emicarent  .  .  .  non  armis 
victricibus ,  sed  supplici  pietate  sedarent,  III,  13. 

Ita  Roma  extitit  victrix  ea  clade  etiam  in  certamine  extremo,  III, 
14. 

unde  rixa  numinum  et  Venus  victrix ,  et  rapta  Helena  et  Troia 
deleta,  III,  25. 

in  illius  autem  incarnatione  natura  humana  erat,  sed  iusta,  non 
peccatrix  erat,  X,  24. 

quae  sapientia  perpetrari  vetat,  ac  per  hoc  opus  habere  moderatrice 
mente  atque  ratione,  XIV,  19. 

quoniam  rex  Aegyptius  Ptolomaeus  eos  ad  hoc  opus  asciverat, 
ipsam  veritatem  gentibus  alienigenis  invidisse,  XV,  13. 

1  Bayard,  271;  Goelzer  (1),  379;  Goelzer  (2),  644;  Regnier,  89;  Gabar- 
rou,  145. 


5 


6 


Neque  enim  sibi  ipsi  sunt  veritas,  sed  creatricis  participes  Veri- 
tatis  ad  illam  moventur,  XVI,  6. 

Sive  ergo  per  iuvencam  significata  sit  plebs  posita  sub  iugo  legis, 
per  capram  eadem  plebs  peccatrix  futura,  XVI,  24. 
et  multis  cladibus  afflicta  est  ab  alienigenis  regibus  ipsisque 
Romanis,  XVIII,  45. 
ex  homine  virgine,  XVIII,  46. 

Verum  tamen  pertinebat  ad  consultores  deos  vitae  bonae  praecepta 
non  occultare  populis  cultoribus  suis,  II,  4. 
intuentes  alternante  conspectu  'hinc  meretriciam  pompam,  illinc 
virginem  deam,  II,  26. 

At  illae  sine  duce  liomine  atque  rectore  ad  Hebraeos  viam  pertina- 
citer  gradientes,  ...  X,  17. 

ii.  Gender. 

Augustine  adheres  strictly  to  the  careful  distinction  observed  by 
classical  writers  in  the  use  of  gender,  and  herein  he  differs  greatly 
from  Gregory2  and  Jerome.3  He  is  careful  even  to  observe  the 
shades  of  meaning  expressed  by  the  different  genders  of  locus 
recognized  in  classical  times.  In  classical  Latin  locus  is  used  in 
the  masculine  when  referring  to  a  particular  place,  but  when  a 
series  of  connected  places  is  in  question  the  neuter  is  used.  In¬ 
stances  of  this  fine  distinction  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  thus : 

Electus  est  videlicet  locus  tantae  deae  sacratus,  I,  4. 

Cf.  also  VIII,  23 ;  IV,  29 ;  IX,  12,  13,  17 ;  XI,  28;  XIV,  2 ;  passim. 

Locus  is  used  to  designate  a  series  of  connected  places  in  the 
following : 

qui  contra  omnem  consuetudinem  gestorum  ante  bellorum  ad  loca 
sancta  confugientes  Christianae  religionis,  .  .  .  V,  23. 

Cf.  also  I,  1,  2;  II,  6;  XV,  9;  XVIII,  3,  20,  21;  XX,  15,  22. 

hi.  Xumber. 

The  writers  of  the  Classical  period  vary  in  the  use  of  the  singular 
and  plural  of  certain  collective,  abstract  and  concrete  nouns.  For 
example,  in  classical  Latin  sordes  regularly  appears  in  the  plural, 
capillus  and  crinis  are  used  as  collective  nouns  in  the  singular. 

2  Bonnet,  503. 

3  Goelzer  ( I ) ,  293. 


7 


We  find  sordes  used  in  the  singular  by  Cicero/  Plautus4  5  and 
Horace.6  Capillus  appears  once  in  the  plural  in  Cicero.7  The 
writers  of  the  Empire  used  capillus  frequently  in  the  plural.  In 
Vergil  we  read,  Sanguine  turpantem  comptos  de  morte  capillos , 
Aen.  X,  832 ;  in  Horace,  Hunc  et  incomtis  Curium  capillis,  Carm. 
I,  12,  41.  We  also  find  crinis  in  the  plural  in  Vergil,  thus: 

Crinibus  Iliades  possis  peplumque  ferebant,  Aen.  I,  480;  as  well 
as  in  Cicero  8  and  Catullus.9 

The  following  irregularities,  rare  in  classical  Latin,  occur  in  the 

D.  C.D. 

1.  Concrete  terms . 

(a)  Singular  for  plural. 

In  the  classical  and  pre-classical  periods  altare  is  used  only  in 
the  plural.  Augustine  uses  altare  ten  times  in  the  singular,  thus : 

Sed  cur  et  Fides  dea  credita  est  et  accepit  etiam  ipsa  templum  et 
altare ?  IV,  20. 

Quod  etiam  sacramento  altaris  fidelibus  noto  frequentat  ecclesia, 
X,  6. 

Deinde  aedificato  ibi  altari  et  invocato  Deo,  .  .  .  XVI,  19. 
ut  serviret  altari ,  XVII,  5. 

veniebant  homines  ad  templum  vel  altare  Dei,  XVII,  6. 

A  quibus  tantum  prima  coepta  fundamina  et  altare  constructum 
est,  XVIII,  26. 

Alioquin  nec  ad  altare  Dei  fieret,  .  .  .  XX,  9. 
cuius  corporis  sacramentum  fideles  communicantes  de  altari  sumere 
consuerunt,  XXI,  25. 

deinde  abscendens  aliquid  de  altari  florum,  XXII,  8. 
eius  est  altare  cor  nostrum,  X,  3. 

It  occurs  eight  times  in  the  plural,  thus : 

ab  Urbis  altaribus  tarn  multos  ac  minutos  deos  tamquam  muscas 
abegerunt,  II,  22. 

verum  etiam  inter  ipsa  deorum  altaria  fundebatur,  III,  31. 

4P.  Plano.  3,  7;  ad.  Att.  1,  16,  11. 

5  Poen.  1,  2,  102. 

8  Ep.  I,  2,  53. 

7  Pis.  15. 

8  Verr.  2,  3,  33. 

9  64,  391. 


8 


quae  tamen  extra  in  aedibus  propriis  altaria,  meruerunt,  IV,  20. 
si  forte  aliorum  aedibns  vel  altaribus  iam  fnisset  locns  occupatus, 
IV,  23. 

verum  etiam  sacra,  sacerdotia,  tabernaculum  sive  templum,  altaria , 
sacrificia,  VII,  32. 

qnibns  templa  altaria ,  sacrificia  sacerdotes  instituendo  atque  prae- 
bendo  summnm  verum  Deum  .  .  .  offenderet,  III,  12. 
templis  altaribus ,  sacrificiis  sacerdotibus  .  .  .  inserviant,  XVIII, 
18. 

nec  ibi  erigimus  altaria ,  XXII,  10. 

In  classical  Latin  sordes  is  used  only  in  the  plural.  In  the 
D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  it  once  in  the  singular  and  three  times 
in  the  plural,  thus : 

Tunc  enim  puri  atque  integri  ab  omni  sorde  ac  labe  peccati  .  .  . 
offerebant,  XX,  26. 

cuius  amor  purgat  a  sordibus  avaritiae,  hoc  est  ab  amore  pecuniae ! 

VII,  12. 

et  mundanis  sordibus  expiatus  mundus  perveniat  ad  Deum,  VII, 
26. 

Nisi  forte  sic  eos  dicendum  est  emundari  a  sordibus  et  eliquari 
quo  dam  mo  do,  XX,  25. 

In  the  Latin  historians,10  the  singular  is  used  to  designate  any 
particular  collective  idea  such  as  people,  army  etc.,  as  the  Populus 
Romanus  of  Caesar  and  Livy.  This  usage  is  very  frequent  in 
Christian  writers.  Numerous  examples  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

Cf.  Multitudo,  I,  15;  XII,  28;  XVI,  4,  etc. 

Hostis,  III,  19 ;  XVII,  13 ;  I,  10,  etc. 

Populus  Hebraeus,  V,  21 ;  VII,  32. 

Turba,  III,  17;  IV,  11;  VI,  9,  etc. 

Vulgus,  I,  22;  IV,  9;  XIV,  2,  etc. 

Augustine  himself  indirectly  lays  down  the  rule  illustrating  the 
use  of  a  singular  term  for  a  plural.  Nam  nimia  disponebatur 
altitudo,  quae  dicta  est  usque  in  caelum,  sive  unius  turris  eius, 
quam  praecipuam  moliebantur  inter  alias,  sive  omnium  turrium, 
quae  per  numerum  singularem  ita  significatae  sunt,  ut  dicitur 
miles  et  intelleguntur  milia  militum,  XVI,  4. 


10  Schmalz,  606  (e). 


9 


(/?)  Plural  for  singular. 

Contrary  to  classical  usage,  the  writers  of  the  Empire  used 
capillus  and  crinis  in  the  plural,  and  these  words  are  so  used  also 
in  the  Christian  period.11  In  the  D.  C.  D.  capillus  occurs  seven 
times  in  the  singular,  always  under  Biblical  influence,  thus : 

quorum  capillus  capitis  non  peribit,  I,  12. 

quantum  capilli  occupant,  XIY,  24. 

capillus  capitis  non  peribit,  XXII,  12. 

qui  dixit  nec  capillum  capitis  esse  periturum,  XXII,  14. 

cum  ipse  nec  capillum  periturum  esse  promiserit,  XXII,  15. 

cum  capillus  hominis  perire  non  possit,  XXII,  20. 

sed  capillus  in  eo  capitis  non  peribit,  XXII,  21. 

It  occurs  in  the  plural  six  times,  thus : 

hanc  vim  in  nostro  corpore  permanare  dicit  in  ossa,  ungues, 
capillos,  VII,  23. 

qui  usque  in  hesternum  diem  madidis  capillis  facie  dealbata,  VII, 
26. 

Sunt  quae  Iunoni  ac  Minervae  capillos  disponant,  .  .  .  VI,  10. 
qui  eis  etiam  de  capillorum  suorum  integritate  securitatem  dedit, 
XIII,  20. 

Quid  iam  respondeam  de  capillis  atque  unguibus?  XXII,  19. 
Quamvis  et  de  ipsis  capillis  possit  inquiri,  XXII,  12. 

Crinis  occurs  in  the  plural  once  in  the  D.  C.  D.  thus : 
nisi  raptae  illae  laceratis  crinibus  emicarent,  .  .  .  Ill,  13. 

(y)  Agreement  of  a  single  verb  with  several  subjects. 

The  following  are  representative  examples  of  a  series  of  subjects 
as  used  with  a  single  verb  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  none  of  which  are  con¬ 
trary  to  classical  Latinity. 

sicuti  sunt  fornicationes,  inmunditiae,  luxuria,  ebrietates,  comi- 
sationes,  XIV,  2. 

At  vero  gens  ilia,  ille  populus,  ilia  civitas,  ilia  res  publica,  illi 
Israelitae,  quibus  credita  sunt  eloquia  Dei  .  .  .  confuderunt, 

XVIII,  41. 

2.  Abstract  terms. 

A  marked  preference  for  concrete  expressions  is  characteristic  of 
classical  Latin.  A  gradually  increasing  use  of  abstract  terms,  how- 


11  Goelzer  (2) ,  261. 


10 


ever,  is  seen  in  the  development  of  the  language  until  in  the  writ¬ 
ings  of  the  Christian  authors  we  at  once  realize  that  one  of  the 
chief  characteristics  of  that  period  is  a  fearless  usage  of  abstract 
expressions.  We  note  the  following  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

(a)  Verbal  nouns  in  tus  and  sus. 

The  plural  of  verbal  nouns  in  tus  and  sus 12  appears  in  the 
nominative  and  accusative  cases  in  classical  Latin  and  seldom 
occurs  in  other  cases.  Augustine,  like  the  writers13  of  the  Christian 
period,  introduced  the  plural  in  all  cases,  thus:  affectus  IX,  4; 
effectuum  V,  2 ;  nisibus  XXII,  13 ;  affectos  XII,  6 ;  passibus  XVIII, 
18;  lapsibus  XII,  14;  accessibus  IV,  4;  anfractibus  XII,  14; 
decessibus  V,  6 ;  conceptibus  XII,  24 ;  eiulatibus  XXII,  8. 

Cf.  also  II,  26;  IV,  8;  IX,  1;  X,  14;  XI,  7;  XII,  6,  14,  24,  26; 
XIII,  10;  XIV,  9,  12,  24;  XV,  3;  XVI,  29;  XVIII,  54,  18;  XXI, 
6;  XXII,  13,  passim. 

(/3)  Abstract  nouns  used  for  participles.14 

et  tanta  hinc  et  inde  cognati  cruoris  effusione  vicisse  Roma  gaude- 
bat.  III,  14. 

Sarra  quippe  sterilis  erat  et  desperatione  prolis,  .  .  .  XV,  3. 

Quod  ergo  in  confessione  ac  professions  tenet  omnis  ecclesia,  .  .  . 
XX,  1. 

Cf.  also  II,  14;  X,  7;  XVII,  7;  XVIII,  32;  XX,  5;  XXI,  25; 
XXII,  30,  passim. 

(y)  Abstract  nouns  used  for  adverbs.15 
de  dono  Dei  cum  tremore  exultasse,  I,  28. 

Quaeso  ab  humano  impetremus  affectu,  ut  femina  sponsum  suum  a 
fratre  suo  peremptum  sine  crimine  fleverit,  si  viri  hostes  a  se 
victos  etiam  cum  laude  fleverunt,  III,  14. 
ubi  et  monstrosos  partus  cum  horrore  et  inrisione  commemorant, 
XXII,  12. 

ut  mentem  legentis  exerceant,  et  pauca  in  eo  sunt,  ex  quorum 
manifestatione  indagentur  cetera  cum  labor e,  XX,  17. 

Cf.  also  VIII,  23;  XI,  31;  XII,  9;  XX,  9,  19;  XXII,  8,  11,  12, 
passim. 

iv.  Cases. 

Elsewhere  we  have  treated  in  detail  the  various  influences  which 
tended  to  bring  about  the  change  evident  in  the  Latin  language 

“  Schmalz,  603.  14  Regnier,  91. 

13  Bayard,  206.  15  Schmalz,  603. 


11 


from  the  Classical  to  the  Christian  periods.  In  no  phase  of  this 
development  does  the  change  appear  so  strikingly  as  in  the  sub¬ 
stantive,  and  especially  in  its  modifications  of  case  usage. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  nominative  and  the  vocative  present  no 
irregularity. 

1.  Accusative. 

(a)  With  verbs. 

Through  the  accusative  case,  the  case  of  the  direct  object,  the 
substantive  is  brought  into  a  certain  relationship  with  the  verb, 
which  relation  is  determined  by  the  character  of  the  verb  and  the 
dependent  substantive.  In  classical  Latinity  this  relation  was  re¬ 
stricted  within  narrow  limits;  and  as  time  went  on,  intransitive 
verbs  tended  more  and  more  to  become  transitive.  In  the  Silver 
Age  and  Ecclesiastical  period  we  have  such  verbs  taking  the  accusa¬ 
tive  as  cavere,  consulere,  inludere ,  interdicere ,  latere,  persuadere , 
supplicare,  mendicare ,  ridere,  indulgere.  These  verbs  were  likewise 
used  transitively  in  the  pre-classical  period.16  In  the  D.  C.  D.  we 
find  the  following: 

Oblivisci  which  takes  the  genitive  of  the  person  in  classical  Latin 
occurs  here  with  the  accusative  of  the  person,  thus : 

quia  non  eos  obliviscente,  sed  potius  miserante  Domino  et  ipsi  post 
hoc  opprobrium  credituri  sunt,  XVII,  12. 

Credere  takes  the  dative  with  persons  in  classical  Latin.  It  occurs 
with  in  and  the  accusative 17  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

Fungi  takes  the  ablative  in  classical  Latin.  It  occurs  with  the 
accusative  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

Samuel  simul  officium  functus  sacerdotis  et  iudicis,  XVII,  4. 

Benedicere  takes  the  dative  in  classical  Latin  in  the  sense  of  to 
praise.  Four  instances  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  where  benedicere, 
meaning  to  bless,  takes  the  accusative.  This  is  the  common 
ecclesiastical  usage. 

Ac  per  hoc  cum  in  Aegypto  moriturus  Israel  suos  filios  benediceret, 

XYI,  41. 

Quos  cum  benediceret  Iacob,  XYI,  42. 

16  Goelzer  (2),  59. 

117  For  credere  with  the  accusative  and  the  preposition  in,  cf.  Chapter 
VIII  on  Prepositions. 


12 


quocl  protulit  Melchisedich,  quando  benedixit  Abraham,  XVII,  17. 
cum  moriturus  filios  suos  et  nepotes  ex  Ioseph  benedixisset  Chris- 
tumque  apertissime  prophetasset,  XVIII,  6. 

(/?)  Appositional  accusative. 

Augustine  uses  an  appositional  accusative  with  the  preposition 
in.  The  construction  seems  to  be  akin  to  the  accusative  with  the 
preposition  in  or  ad  with  verbs  of  motion,  thus : 

Cum  autem  Deus  iubet  seque  iubere  sine  ullis  ambagibus  intimat, 
quis  oboedientiam  in  crimen  vocet?  I,  26. 

2.  Genitive. 

As  the  accusative  case  is  closely  connected  with  the  verb  in  most 
of  its  relations,  so  in  a  similar  manner  is  the  genitive  connected 
with  the  substantive.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  a  greater  number  of  irregu¬ 
larities  center  around  the  genitive  than  around  any  of  the  other 
oblique  cases.  These  irregularities  are : 

(a)  Genitive  of  quality. 

The  substantive  18  on  which  the  genitive  depends  is  sometimes 
omitted  by  Christian  writers.19  Bayard  calls  this  the  elliptical 
genitive.  Schmalz  classifies  it  under  the  genitive  of  quality. 

Four  passages  with  huius  modi  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  in  which 
this  omission  appears,  thus: 

si  haec  atque  huius  modi,  quae  habet  historia,  IV,  2. 
haec  ergo  atque  huius  modi  nequaquam  illis,  X,  16. 

Haec  atque  huius  modi  Deo  parva  sunt,  X,  18. 

Haec  atque  huius  modi  mihi  cogitanti  non  videtur,  XVIII,  52. 

A  considerable  amount  of  freedom  is  permitted  even  in  classical 
Latin  when  there  is  a  question  of  the  genitive  or  ablative  of  quality. 
The  genitive  is  usually  used  when  the  idea  of  quality  is  embodied 
in  number,  measure,  time,  space  or  class.  Strictly  speaking  the 
ablative  is  used  when  treating  of  form  and  appearance,  of  char¬ 
acteristics  of  dress  or  person.  In  ecclesiastical  Latin,  however,  the 
genitive  tends  to  supplant  the  ablative  in  this  construction,  as  may 
be  seen  from  the  following  examples : 

Egregius  Bomani  nominis  Marcus  Marcellus,  I,  6. 

18  Schmalz,  363. 

19  Bayard,  210;  Gabarrou,  100. 


13 


Nam  vir  clarissimus  Flaccianus  .  .  .  homo  facillimae  facundiae 
multaeque  doctrinae,  XVIII,  23. 

(/ 3 )  Partitive  Genitive. 

The  partitive  genitive  is  employed  four  times  depending  on 
medius  used  substantively,  where  in  classical  Latin  medius  as  an 
adjective  would  agree  with  the  noun.  This,  however,  is  clearly  due 
to  the  influence  of  neighboring  quotations  from  Scripture. 

de  medio  ecclesiae ,  .  .  .  XX,  19. 
de  medio  Babylonis  .  .  .  XVIII,  18. 

aut  in  medio  duarum  latronum,  aut  in  medio  Moysi  et  Heliae  .  .  . 
XVIII,  32. 

in  medio  inimicorum  suorum  .  .  .  XVII,  17. 

The  partitive  genitive  instead  of  e  or  ex  and  the  ablative  is  used 
with  numerals  in  the  following  examples: 

unus  illorum  septem,  VIII,  2. 

itemque  alter  filiorum  Sem  genuit  .  .  .  XVI,  3. 

Cf .  also  XVI,  41 ;  XVIII,  9,  42 ;  passim. 

(y)  Objective  and  Subjective  Genitive. 

In  classical  Latin  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  (not  the 
possessive)  is  used  regularly  as  the  objective  genitive.  To  denote 
possession,  however,  the  possessive  pronoun  and  not  the  possessive 
genitive  of  a  pronoun  is  almost  universal  until  after  Tacitus.20 

For  the  regular  objective  genitive,  cf.  I,  10;  X,  16;  XIV,  13,  28; 
XV,  17;  XVI,  29. 

A  single  example  occurs  of  this  irregular  use  of  possessive  geni¬ 
tive  of  the  pronoun. 

quam  totam  implet  praesentia  sui,  I,  12. 

( 8 )  Genitive  with  nouns  in  tor. 

On  almost  every  page  of  the  D.  C.  D.  we  meet  with  verbal  nouns 
in  tor  used  with  the  genitive.  This  construction  was  already  in 
use  in  the  pre-classical  period.  In  the  Golden  Age,  we  still  find 
it  used  among  the  representative  authors  of  that  period,  although 
there  is  a  marked  preference  among  them  for  a  relative  clause.21 
Thus  Cicero,  instead  of  saying  fabricator ,  prefers  to  say  pictores 

20 Lane  1234,  1262;  Goelzer  (2),  95;  Bayard,  209. 

21  Schmalz,  607. 


14 


et  ii,  qui  signa  fabricantur.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  the  following: 

vera  autem  institia  non  est  nisi  in  ea  re  publica,  cuius  conditor 
rector que  Christus  est,  II,  21. 

profecto  eo  modo,  quo  sunt  peccatores,  etiam  praevaricatores  legis 
illius,  XVI,  27. 

non  arbitremur  habere  animam  Deum,  cum  sit  conditor  animae, 
XVII,  5. 

Cf.  also  II,  18;  IV,  33;  V,  26;  VI,  4;  VIII,  23;  X,  23,  28;  XI, 
25;  XII,  27;  XIII,  14;  XV,  9;  XVI,  43;  XVII,  5;  XVIII, 
36;  XIX,  13;  XX,  28;  XXI,  14;  XXII,  24;  passim. 

(e)  Hebrew  Genitive. 

Among  the  many  forces  functioning  indirectly  at  this  period, 
and  eventually  affecting  the  constructions  of  the  language,  the 
translation  of  the  Bible  from  the  Hebrew  through  Greek  into 
Latin  exerted  no  small  influence.  The  Hebrew  Genitive,  so  called 
by  Bayard,22  is  composed  of  the  genitive  of  a  substantive  (usually 
feminine)  depending  on  another  substantive 23  as  terra  sanctitatis. 
It  passed  into  ecclesiastical  Latin  and  appears  abundantly  in  the 
works  of  the  period.24  The  following  are  from  the  D.  C.  D. : 

qui  Christianis  feminis  in  captivitate  compressis  alieni  ab  omni 
cogitatione  sanctitatis  insultant,  I,  19. 
studemus  accendere  sive  ad  virginalem  integritatem  sive  ad  con- 
tinentiam  vidualem  sive  ad  ipsam  tori  conjugalis  fidem,  I,  27. 
quae  fictio  non  mentientis,  nisi  profun dum  mysterium  veritatis ? 
XVI,  37. 

Cf.  also  I,  9,  12,  21,  25,  27;  II,  18,  29;  III,  28;  IV,  5;  V,  6,  12; 
VIII,  10;  X,  8,  19;  XIV,  17;  XVI,  37;  XVII,  4,  5;  XVIII, 
18,  53;  XX,  3,  6,  19;  XXI,  18,  24;  passim. 

(£)  Genitive  with  adjectives. 

Felix  occurs  with  the  genitive  for  the  first  time  in  the  poets  of  the 
Imperial  Epoch.25  Through  the  influence  of  the  syntax  of 
the  poets  it  appears  in  the  prose  writers  of  the  period.  One 
instance  occurs  of  felix  and  the  genitive  in  the  D.  C.  D.  thus : 

22  Bayard,  210. 

23  Schmalz,  362,  An.  2. 

24  Goelzer  (1),  323;  Goelzer  (2),  100;  Regnier,  41. 

25  Riemann  and  Goelzer,  167. 


15 


Metellus  enim  Romanorum  laudatissimus,  qui  habuit  quinque  filios 
consulares,  etiam  rerum  temporalium  felix  fuit,  II,  23. 

3.  Dative. 

The  function  of  the  dative  case  in  classical  Latin  is  to  indicate 
that  to  or  for  which  anything  is  done.  In  later  periods,  its  use 
was  extended,  especially  with  verbs  to  indicate  many  other  kinds 
of  relationship.  In  this  respect  the  D.  C.  D.  of  Augustine,  unlike 
the  works  of  other  Christian  writers,  does  not  differ  in  a  very 
marked  degree  from  classical  Latinity.  The  irregularities  found 

in  the  D.  C.  D.  are  the  following: 

* 

(a)  Dative  after  verbs. 

Without  doubt  it  is  by  analogy  with  verbs  like  redire 26  etc. 
that  other  verbs  such  as  reddere ,  restituere  etc.  take  the  dative, 
not  of  the  person,  but  of  the  state  to  which  a  person  or  thing 
returns. 

Reddere  with  the  dative  of  the  state  to  which  occurs  in  the  three 
following  passages  from  the  D.  C.  D. : 

et  suae  potestati  reddi  potuerunt,  X,  26. 

Redditi  sunt  animo  eius,  XXII,  8. 

quam  ferebat,  super  earn  proiecisset,  reddita  est  vitae,  XXII,  8. 

(/3)  Dative  with  adjectives. 

In  Plautus  and  Terence  similis  takes  the  genitive ;  but  in  general 
from  Ennius  on  the  dative  as  well  as  the  genitive  is  used.  In 
classical  Latin  similis  is  said  to  take  the  genitive  for  a  general  or 
comprehensive  likeness  and  the  dative  for  a  conditional  or  partial 
likeness.27 

Augustine  uses  the  dative  with  similis  about  five  times  as  often 
as  the  genitive,  and  in  these  examples  it  is  usually  difficult  to 
discover  any  real  distinction  of  meaning. 

ne  fiant  similes  earum  muliercularum,  quas  commemorat  apostolus, 

...  II,  1. 

non  sane  iusti,  sed  daemonum  similes,  ea,  quae  vana  esse  noverant, 
IV,  32. 

qui  etiam  ludis  talibus  delectentur,  simile  sit  furoris,  VI,  9. 
qui  est  in  corpore  humano,  simillimus  est  inmortalis  animi,  VII,  5. 

26  Bonnet,  539;  Gabarrou,  104. 

27Riemann  and  Goelzer,  161;  Kuhner,  448h,  449,  A.  S. 


16 


Hi  et  ceteri  similes  eorum  id  solum  cogitare  potuerunt,  VIII,  5. 
ut  ponerent  in  Deo  spem  suam,  similes  illius ,  .  .  .  XV,  23. 
ut  novissima  Antichristi  persecutio  similis  videatur  undecimae 
plagae ,  XVIII,  52. 

quod  eis  etsi  non  certum,  tamen  veri  simile  videbatur,  XIX,  1. 
vel  etiam  pervicacia  simillima  insaniae  id,  XX,  1. 

Similis  with  the  dative. 

ei  similis  de  qua  scriptum  est,  II,  5. 
ut  similiores  eis  sunt,  Y,  1. 

ut  mimicae  scurrilitati  videatur  esse  similiimum ,  YI,  1. 

Cf.  also  II,  1;  III,  19;  Y,  62;  YI,  1,  8,  9,  10;  VII,  5,  7,  23; 
YIII,  5,  17;  IX,  17,  20;  X,  8,  11;  XI,  26;  XII,  26;  XIY,  2, 
3,  4,  20,  22,  24;  XY,  7,  10,  23;  XYI,  8;  XVII,  9;  XVIII, 
17,  52;  XX,  3,  23;  XXI,  5,  10;  XXII,  8,  23,  28,  29. 

4.  Ablative. 

The  ablative  case  is  used  especially  with  verbs  and  their  par¬ 
ticiples,  or  with  adjectives.  It  may  be  described  as  an  adverbial 
case,  because  a  noun  in  the  ablative  generally  qualifies  a  verb, 
adjective  or  adverb  in  the  same  way  as  an  adverb  does. 

Among  the  many  uses  of  the  ablative  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  irregu¬ 
larities  occur  which  are  only  slightly  known  in  classical  Latin  as 
compared  with  their  frequent  occurrence  in  ecclesiastical  Latin. 

(a)  Ablative  with  adjectives. 

Plenus  with  the  genitive  is  the  regular  rule  in  Cicero  and 
Caesar.28  Plenus  was  used  in  classical  Latin  with  the  ablative, 
and  appears  frequently  in  the  writers  of  the  Empire  and  thence 
on  through  the  Christian  period.  With  no  apparent  preference, 
Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  uses  plenus  with  the  genitive  and  the 
ablative  at  will.  Twenty-one  passages  with  plenus  and  the  ablative 
occur,  thus: 

ut  ipsum  perferat  mundum  per  omnes  horas  temptationibus 
plenum,  I,  27. 

Civitas  regis  magni,  gratio  plena,  XVII,  4. 

Xempe  una  est  terra,  quam  plenam  quidem  videmus  animalibus 
suis,  VII,  23. 


2S  Sclimalz,  383. 


17 


quanto  minus  credendum  est  illis  litteris,  quas  plenas  fabulosis 
velut  antiquitatibus  .  .  .  XII,  11. 
si  omnia  quattuor  elementa  suis  animalibus  plena  sunt,  VIII,  17. 
Cf.  also  XI,  10;  XV,  16;  XVII,  4,  8;  XIX,  5,  8,  20;  XX,  1,  2; 
XXI,  7,  14;  XXII,  1,  4,  8,  22,  30. 

Thirteen  passages  occur  with  plenus  and  the  genitive,  thus : 

sollicitudinis  autem  plena  sunt  coepta,  VII,  7. 
quae  falsissima  est  et  plenissima  erroris ,  IX,  18. 
indignitatis  et  turpitudinis  plena,  VI,  7. 

Xeque  enim  in  hoc  tarn  praeclaro  opere  et  tantae  plenissimo  digni¬ 
tatis  audent  .  .  .  IV,  8. 

quas  omnes  partes  quattuor  animarum  esse  plenas,  VII,  6. 

Cf.  also  VIII,  26;  X,  11,  22;  XI,  23;  XII,  21;  XVI,  31;  XIX, 
8,  23. 

Reus  is  used  in  pre-classical  writers  with  the  genitive.  Later 
on,  reus  like  plenus,  appears  with  the  ablative.  Classical  writers, 
however,  prefer  the  genitive.29 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  reus  seven  times.  In  five  pas¬ 
sages  it  is  construed  with  the  genitive  and  in  two  with  the  ablative, 
thus : 

(a)  With  the  genitive. 

verum  etiam  suae  mortis  reus  finivit  hanc  vitam,  I,  17. 

Porro  si  falsi  testimonii  non  minus  reus,  est  qui  de  se  ipso  falsum 
fatetur,  I,  20. 

nulla  civitatis  suae  lege  reus  est  homicidii ,  immo,  nisi  fecerit,  reus 
est  imperii  deserti  atque  contempti,  I,  26. 

Xc  itaque  reus  esset  tanti  sacramenti  in  Saule  violati,  XVII,  6. 

(/ 3 )  With  the  ablative.30 

ut  capitali  crimine  reus  fieret,  si  quis  earn  fuisse  hominem  diceret, 
XVIII,  3.  (Xon-classical.) 

cum  homicidii  crimine  reus  fieret,  XVIII,  10.  (Classical.) 

(y)  Ablative  of  time. 

Duration  of  time  and  extent  of  space  are  usually  expressed  in 
classical  Latin  with  the  accusative  case. 

29Riemann  and  Goelzer,  166. 

30  For  the  genitive  of  the  charge  may  be  substituted  in  classical  Latin 
nomine  or  crimine  with  the  genitive  or  with  the  ablative  and  de. 

2C 


IS 


Four  passages  embodying  the  idea  of  duration  of  time  occur  in 
the  D.  C.  D.,  where  Augustine  uses  the  ablative  for  the  accusative, 
thus : 

qui  per  ipsum  .  .  .  panels  diebus  vitae  suae  cursim  raptimque 
transierunt,  IV,  5. 

Quantum  enim  pertinet  ad  hanc  vitam  mortalium,  quae  panels 
diebus  ducitur  et  finitur,  V,  17. 

Utrum  autem  etiam  11 1 Is  ultimls  tribus  annis  et  menslbus  sex , 
XX,  8. 

Haec  persecutio  novissima,  .  .  .  tribus  annis  et  sex  mensibus  erit, 

XX,  13. 

« 


CHAPTER  II— ADJECTIVES. 


The  twofold  process  according  to  Schmalz,1  of  making  nonns 
out  of  adjectives  is;  first,  by  unconsciously  investing  an  adjective 
with  the  idea  of  a  substantive  which  is  not  expressed,  (this  idea 
may  be  that  of  a  person  or  thing  or  some  other  idea  less  general) ; 
second,  through  the  conscious  ellipsis  of  a  substantive  of  a  more 
limited  meaning.  In  the  first  case  the  idea  of  the  substantive  is 
vague  and  the  thought  is  embodied  in  the  quality,  usually  a  calling, 
profession  and  the  like,  expressed  by  the  adjective,  as  consularis, 
amicus ,  bonus;  while  in  the  second,  owing  to  the  structure  of  the 
phrase  and  the  restricted  idea  of  the  substantive  which  is  generally 
of  a  concrete  nature,  ellipsis  is  consciously  admitted  and  the  adjec¬ 
tive  functions  as  a  noun,  as  fera  where  bestia  could  be  easily 
understood. 

The  use  of  adjectives  as  substantives  in  the  Classical  period  was 
in  general  restricted.  Writers  confined  themselves  to  the  following 
usages : 

For  persons: 

The  singular  of  an  adjective  as  iustus ,  fidelis,  is  seldom  met 
with.  The  use  in  the  plural  as  docti ,  sapientes,  is  frequent,  espe¬ 
cially  in  the  nominative.  The  other  cases  were  rarely  allowed  to 
assume  a  substantival  character. 

For  things: 

In  the  nominative  and  accusative  cases,  the  neuter  singular  of 
the  second  declension  tends  to  express  an  idea  rather  in  the  ab¬ 
stract,  as  honestum ,  verum;  while  the  plural  in  the  same  cases 
lends  itself  to  a  more  concrete  expression,  as  honesta,  vera. 

Prepositional  phrases: 

Prepositions  in  combination  with  the  accusative  and  ablative 
singular  of  neuter  adjectives  of  the  second  and  third  declensions 
occur,  as  ad  extremum,  de  cetero,  in  proclivi. 

In  Sallust  there  is  a  marked  tendency  toward  the  use  of  adjec¬ 
tives  as  substantives.  The  writers  of  the  Empire  and  of  the  Chris- 


1  Schmalz,  608. 


19 


20 


tian  period  waive  aside  all  limitations,  and  treat  adjectives  as 
substantives  without  restriction  of  any  kind. 

Among  the  Christian  writers  Cyprian,2  Arnobius,3  Jerome  4  and 
Avitus  5  as  well  as  Augustine  manifest  an  absolute  freedom  in  this 
usage.  The  following  examples  are  from  the  D.  C.  D. : 

1.  For  persons  in  the  singular  and  plural,  nominative  and  accusa¬ 
tive  cases. 

Sic  evaserunt  multi,  qui  nunc  Christianis  temporibus  detrahunt  et 
mala,  I,  1. 

Nam  bonus  temporalibus  nec  bonis  extollitur  nec  malis  frangitur; 

malus  autem  ideo  huiusce  modi  infelicitate  punitur,  I,  8. 
nam  hoc  quoque  in  libris  suis  habent  eorum  docti  atque  sapientes, 
IY,  10. 

Quo  modo  ergo  bona  est,  quae  sine  ullo  iudicio  venit  et  ad  bonos 
et  ad  malos ?  IY,  18. 

scaenicus  autem  ludendo  potius  delectaret,  YI,  11. 
constat  inter  historicos  graves,  XYIII,  8. 

Ecce  hie  dixit  fideles  suos  in  iudicium  non  venire,  XX,  5. 

Sed  quod  dixi  scriptum  a  Yarrone,  licet  eorum  sit  historicus 
idemque  doctissimus,  XXI,  8. 

Ac  per  hoc  haeretici  et  schismatici  ab  huius  unitate  corporis  sepa¬ 
rate  possunt  idem  percipere  sacramentum,  XXI,  25. 

Cf.  also  I,  1;  II,  2,  25;  III,  6,  7;  IY,  2,  11;  Y,  12,  26;  YI,  1; 
VIII,  26;  IX,  8;  X,  10;  XY,  1,  23;  XYIII,  51;  XX,  19, 
passim. 

2.  For  things  in  the  singular  and  plural  nominative  and  accusa¬ 
tive  cases. 

quia  et  ipsi  vidimus  talia  ac  talibus  numinibus  exhiberi,  IY,  1. 

Sed  si  virtus  non  nisi  ad  ingeniosum  posset  venire,  IY,  21. 

Yerum  tamen  qui  omnia  mala  animae  ex  corpore  putant  accidisse, 
XIY,  3. 

Yoluntas  quippe,  inquiunt,  appetit  bonum,  .  .  .  cautio  devitat 
malum,  XIY,  8. 

alternaverunt  prosper  a  et  adversa  bellorum,  XYI,  43. 
quae  ille  plura  commemoravit  et  brevia,  XYIII,  23. 
ubi  erit  Deus  omnia  in  omnibus,  XIX,  20. 


a  Bayard,  271. 

3  Gabarrou,  147. 


4Goelzer  (1),  108. 
6  Goelzer  (2),  646. 


21 


3.  In  other  cases. 

isto  compendio  possent  in  illo  uno  omnibus  snpplicare  .  .  .  IV,  11. 

Jovem  igitur  de  omnibus  rogarent,  IY,  17. 

De  supervacuis  non  magna  causa,  IY,  27. 

Sed  non  te  andinnt,  daemones  sunt,  prava  docent,  turpibus  gaudent, 
IY,  27. 

ab  auribus  omnium  repellendi  sunt,  Y,  1. 

non  deberent  inspectis  natalium  constellationibus  de  valetudine 
aliqnid  dicer e,  Y,  5. 

De  talibus  enim,  qui  propter  hoc  boni  aliqnid  facere  videntur, 
Y,  15. 

sed  earn  potins  quantum  valuit  ab  haereticorum  perniciosissima 
pravitate  defendit,  Y,  18. 

et  quod  minus  ferre  bonorum  possit  aspectus,  Y,  20. 

sed  ipsi  soli  et  lunae  aut  cuicumque  caelestium  homo  vitio  cuilibet 
obnoxius  minas  eosque  territat  falso,  X,  11. 

sed  ipsis  caelestibus  et  siderea  luce  fulgentibus,  X,  11. 

atque  in  infidelibus  claudus,  XYI,  39. 

unus  e  septem  sapientibus,  XYIII,  14. 

quae  nunc  in  sanctis  fidelibus  est  diffusa  per  terras,  XX,  21. 

Deus  erit  omnia  in  omnibus!  XXII,  29. 

Cf.  also  I,  16;  III,  12,  18,  26,  30;  IY,  11,  17;  Y,  26;  YIII,  2,  10; 
IX,  4,  11;  XY,  1,  23;  XYII,  23;  XXI,  5,  6,  25;  passim. 


4.  Prepositional  phrases. 

susurrans  in  occulto  verba  institiae  ad  decipiendos  etiam  paucos 
bonos,  II,  26. 

quae  suos  agros  non  haberet,  de  publico  viveret,  Y,  17. 

Non  opus  est  multa  percurrere,  cum  res  in  aperto  sit,  VTI,  1. 

quam  creavit  ex  nihilo,  XIV,  11. 

quid  est  nisi  aut  in  medio  duorum  testamentorum,  aut  in  medio 
duorum  latronum,  aut  in  medio  Moysi  et  Heliae  cum  illo  in 
monte  sermocinantium  ?  XYIII,  32. 

Cf.  also  VII,  1;  IX,  13;  XI,  4;  XII,  5,  16;  XIV,  11,  13;  XYII, 
4;  XYIII,  52;  XX,  19;  passim. 

Augustine,  conforming  to  a  usage  not  uncommon  in  his  time, 

but  seldom  found  in  classical  Latin 6  uses  the  comparative  and 


6iSchmalz,  609;  Goelzer  (2),  649. 


22 


superlative  of  adjectives  in  both  numbers  and  all  cases  as  sub¬ 
stantives.  From  the  D.  C.  D.  are  the  following: 


quae  praetermissi  essent,  multo  numerosioribus  praeberetur,  IV,  11. 
Sed  quia  peius  esset,  ut  iniuriosi  iustioribus  dominarentur,  IV,  15. 
Si  enim  a  maioribus  illi  sunt  appellat  superstitiosi,  IV,  30. 

Multo  sunt  autem  tolerabiliores,  qui  vel  siderea  fata  constituunt, 


V,  9. 

in  forma  Dei  supra  angelos  mansit  ;  idem  in  inferioribus  via  vitae, 
qui  in  superioribus  vita,  IX,  15. 

Quaerit  enim  cur  tamquam  melioribus  invocatis  quasi  peioribus 
imperetur,  X,  11. 

quod  septuaginta  interpretes  in  plurimis,  XV,  14. 

Sed  ad  manifestiora  veniamus  .  .  .  XIX,  23. 

Non  itaque  pergo  per  plurima ,  XXI,  5. 

eorumque  paucos  discipulos  suos  faciunt  plurimorumque  doctores, 


XXI,  6. 

Cf.  also  II,  26;  III,  12;  IV,  5,  8,  11,  26,  34;  VI,  10;  X,  23;  XII, 
22;  XIV,  8;  XVIII,  8,  33,  37;  passim. 


n.  Adjectives  for  Genitives  of  Possession. 

Instances  occur  in  classical  Latin,  even  in  Cicero,  of  adjectives 
taking  the  place  of  genitives  either  when  they  express  the  subject 
of  the  action  in  the  noun  on  which  they  depend  as  Cic.  ad  Att.  6, 
17,  erratum  fab  rile;  or  as  the  equivalent  of  the  genitive  of  pos¬ 
session,  as  Ter.  Andr.  602,  erilem  filium.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  as  in  all 
ecclesiastical  Latin  such  adjectives  appear  with  far  greater  fre¬ 
quency,  thus : 

quibus  baptizatos  adloquendo  studemus  accendere  sivi  ad  vir- 
ginalem  integritatem  sive  ad  continentiam  vidualem  .  .  . 
I,  27. 

si  earum  quoque  aliquas  barbarica  libido  compressit,  I,  28. 
Sciebatur  virginali  numini  quid  placeret,  II,  26. 
in  utero  virginali  domum  sibi  aedificasse  corpus  humanum  et  huic, 
XVII,  20. 

in  novis  evangelium  et  apostolicae  litterae,  XX,  4. 

Currus  vero  eius  .  .  .  angelica  ministeria  non  inconvenienter  ac- 
cipimus,  XX,  21. 

Cf.  also  I,  25;  II,  13;  III,  30;  V,  6,  11,  18;  VII,  26;  X,  3,  16; 
XIV,  3,  11;  XV,  26;  XVII,  18,  20;  passim.  <• 


23 


hi.  Degrees  oe  Comparison. 

The  value  of  the  suffixes  is  not  fully  appreciated  in  the  Christian 
period.  This  is  due  no  doubt  to  the  irregularities  prevalent  in  the 
popular  language  of  the  day  and  unconsciously  taken  over  into  the 
writings  of  the  period.  However,  Augustine,  unlike  many  Chris¬ 
tian  writers,7  has  shown  a  marked  care  in  his  use  of  the  suffixes 
forming  the  degrees  of  comparison.  Very  few  irregularities  appear 
in  the  D.  C.  D. 

In  one  passage  magis  is  used  with  a  positive  for  a  comparative, 
thus : 

Quis  adversus  eos  contentiosior,  animosior,  et  magis  aemulus  atque 
invidus  invenitur?  XIY,  3. 

In  another  place  the  comparative  is  used  for  either  a  positive  or 
superlative,  thus : 

cum  patre  suo  qui  translatus  fuerat  aliquantum  fuisse  atque  ibi, 
donee  diluvium  praeteriret,  vixisse  arbitrantur,  nolentes  dero- 
gare  fidem  codicibus,  quos  in  auctoritatem  celebriorem  suscepit 
ecclesia,  XY,  11. 

In  thirteen  passages  Augustine  joins  a  positive  and  superlative, 
and  in  one,  a  positive  and  comparative,  an  irregularity  which  ac¬ 
cording  to  Schmalz  8  appears  only  in  late  Latin. 

ut  videlicet  poeta  magnus  omniumque  praeclarissimus  atque  opti- 
mus  teneris  ebibitus  animis  non  facile  oblivione  possit  aboleri, 
I,  3. 

I  ' 

qui  nostro  Deo  conditori  sanctae  et  gloriossissimae  civitates  deos 
suos  praeferunt,  X,  18. 

quod  perversissimae  atque  impiae  vanitatis  est,  XI,  34. 

Cf.  also  XII,  27;  XIY,  13;  XY,  1,  10;  XVII,  3;  XVIII,  24; 
XIX,  23;  XX,  5,  9;  XXII,  14. 

Octava  generatio  habet  quidem  nonnullam  diversitatem,  sed 
minor em  ac  dissimilem  ceteris,  XV,  10. 

iv.  Miscellaneous  Exceptional  Uses  of  Adjectives. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  stereotyped  expressions  such  as 
plurimam  salutem ,  ad  multam  noctem,  plurima  exercitatio,  etc. 

7  Goelzer  (1),  399;  Goelzer  (2),  657;  Gabarrou,  150. 

'Schmalz,  616. 


24 


found  in  classical  Latin,  the  singular  of  the  adjectives  multus, 
paucus,  plurimus,  omnis,  singulus,  is  not  used  with  substantives  in 
a  plural  sense.  Schmalz9  cites  Tertullian  and  Orosius  as  exponents 

of  the  use  of  this  syntactical  phenomenon. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  occur  which  are  classical : 

Iste  ergo  multus  error  et  incredulitas  non  animadvertentium  ad 
cultum  religionemque  divinam  invenit  artem,  VIII,  24. 
et  tamen  si  causas  art.is  huius  nos  diceremus  multum  errorem 
hominum,  VIII,  24. 

Qui  cum  ei  protectionem  mercedemque  promitteret  valde  multam , 
XVI,  23. 

Ita  perficit  Christus  multam  multitudinem  dulcedinis  suae  speran- 
tibus  in  eum,  XXI,  24. 


Numerals. 

Classical  Latin  requires,  in  the  case  of  compound  numbers  from 
twenty-one  to  ninety-seven  inclusive,  that  the  smaller  number  with 
et  precede  the  larger,  or  that  the  larger  number  precede  the  smaller 
without  et,  as  unus  et  viginte  or  viginti  unus. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  cases  where  there  is  a  violation  of 
the  rule  given  above,  Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  is  quite  regular 
in  his  use  of  numerals.  The  following  are  the  variations  which 
occur : 

triginti  et  novem  anni  in  tarn  longa  pace  transacti  sunt  regnante 
Xuma,  III,  9. 

Bellum  Punicum  primum  per  viginti  et  tres  annos  peractum  td, 

V,  22. 

Quadraginta  et  unum  libros  scripsit  antiquitatum,  VI,  3. 
qui  eum  octoginta  et  unum  vixisset,  VIII,  11. 

Menses  quippe  illi  triduani  viginti  et  septem  dies  habere  non 
poterant,  XV,  14. 

Augustine  makes  frequent  use  of  the  correlatives  unus — alter  for 
alter — alter  to  denote  either  division  of  a  group.  This  irregularity 
occurs  in  about  fifty-five  passages  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

An  Veneres  duae  sunt,  una  virgo,  altera  mulier?  IV,  10. 
a  quibus  solos  duos  deos  coli,  unum  bonum,  alterum  malum,  V,  21. 


9  Schmalz,  612. 


25 


ubi  dederunt  Marte  et  Oreo,  uni  eftectori  mortium  alteri  receptori, 
YII,  3. 

duo  philosophorum  genera  traduntur :  unum  Italicum  ex  ea  parte 
Italiae  .  .  .  alterum  Ionicum  in  eis  terris,  VIII.  2. 

Cf.  also  I,  19,  24;  IV,  3,  10;  V,  4;  VI,  3,  7,  9;  VII,  3,  7,  11; 
VIII,  2,  3,  4;  IX,  13;  X,  5,  32;  XI,  33;  XII,  1,  6,  13;  XIII, 
21;  XIV,  1,  4,  13,  28;  XV,  1,  2,  8,  15,  20,  21,  26;  XVI,  1, 
17,  25,  40;  XVII,  2,  3,  4,  20;  XVIII,  1,  28,  44;  XIX,  3; 
XXI,  1,  4,  26;  XXII,  5,  8,  24,  30. 


CHAPTER  III— PRONOUNS. 


Among  the  characteristics  which  differentiate  ecclesiastical  from 
classical  Latin,  the  peculiarities  pertaining  to  the  use  of  the  pro¬ 
nouns  are  perhaps  the  most  pronounced.  In  some  cases  the  writers 
of  the  Christian  epoch,  more  especially  those  of  Africa,  have  dis¬ 
regarded  in  part  not  only  the  fine  shades  of  meaning  always  ob¬ 
served  by  classical  writers,  but  at  times  have  even  confused  the 
fundamental  meaning  of  one  pronoun  with  that  of  another.  Thus 
the  reflexive  pronouns  are  now  used  interchangeably  with  demon¬ 
stratives,  now  with  intensives,  as  in  Arnobius:  qui  (Christus) 
iustissimis  viris  .  .  .  ac  diligentibus  sese  (=ipsum)  .  .  .  apparet. 
I,  46,  and  in  Cyprian :  Factus  est  autem  Cornelius  episcopus  de 
sacerdotum  antiquorum  et  bonorum  virorum  collegio  (consensu) 
cum  nemo  ante  se  (=  eum)  factus  esset,  629,  21. 

It  is  not  chiefly  among  the  reflexives,  however,  as  in  the  examples 
above  that  the  striking  irregularities  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  of 
Augustine.  While  some  such  appear,  the  variations  from  classical 
norms  abound  more  in  the  demonstratives.  Augustine  seems  to 
use  the  demonstratives,  especially  those  of  the  first,  second  and 
third  persons  promiscuously.  In  making  contrasts  between  two 
persons  or  things,  one  may  find  the  classical  usage  hie  .  .  .  ille, 
but  much  more  frequently  hie  .  .  .  iste,  or  ille  .  .  .  ille  or  ills 
.  .  .  iste. 

These  irregularities  are  due  no  doubt  to  the  inevitable  change 
which  took  place  in  the  language  when  influenced  by  the  Greek 
and  Semitic  languages,  directly  or  indirectly,  through  the  trans¬ 
lations  of  the  Bible. 


i.  Personal  Pronouns. 

Like  all  Latin  writers,  Augustine  uses  the  personal  pronouns 
only  where  it  is  necessary  to  emphasize  the  idea  of  the  person.  In 
speaking  of  himself  he  uses  the  first  person  plural ;  as  .  .  .  de  qua 
loqui  instituimus,  I,  1  etc.,  a  usage  employed  by  wwiters  of  ail 
periods  of  the  language.  It  is  scarcely  possible,  owing  to  the  dis¬ 
tinct  and  precise  meaning  assigned  to  each,  that  a  confusion  should 
arise  in  the  use  of  the  personal  pronouns. 

26 


27 


ii.  Relative  Pronouns. 

The  relative  pronouns  like  the  personal  offer  little  difficulty. 
Goelzer  1  when  treating  of  the  syntax  of  the  pronouns  in  Avitus, 
classifies  the  indefinites  with  the  pure  relatives.  As  our  classifica¬ 
tion  conforms  to  that  of  Schmalz,  we  shall  retain  the  treatment  of 
the  indefinites  for  a  special  section  (v)  of  this  chapter. 

hi.  Reflexive  Pronouns. 

The  idea  of  reciprocity  in  classical  Latin  is  expressed  by  the 
reflexive  phrases  inter  nos ,  inter  vos,  inter  se.  Later  on,  however, 
in  the  Augustan  age  we  find  Livy  joining  the  adverb  invicem  to 
inter  se;  thus:  Invicem  inter  se  gratantes,  9,  43,  17.  Soon  the 
reflexive  phrase  was  omitted  and  the  reciprocal  relation  was  ex¬ 
pressed  by  invicem ;  as  Ut  invicem  ardentius  diligwmus ,  Plin.  ep. 
7,  20,  7.  Schmalz 2  says  that  inter  se  was  not  lost  to  the  language, 
but  was  used  by  the  authors  who  followed  classical  traditions. 
Augustine  uses  both  forms  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

Inter  se  occurs  in  ninety-four  passages  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

Etiam  ipse  de  particulis  inter  se  sdmilibus,  VIII,  2. 
nos  ergo  has  duas  societates  angelicas  inter  se  dispares  atque  con- 
trarias,  XI,  33. 

Pugnant  ergo  inter  se  mali  et  mali,  XV,  5. 

Cf.  also  II,  25;  III,  14;  IV,  7,  27;  V,  1,  2,  3,  4,  6;  VI,  5,  6;  VII, 
4,  11;  VIII,  2,  3,  14;  IX,  1,  2,  7,  9,  14,  23;  XI,  34;  XII,  9, 

14,  17,  19,  22,  23;  XIII,  16;  XIV,  4,  10,  12,  18,  26;  XV,  13, 

15,  16;  XVI,  8,  20,  24,  36;  XVII,  7,  11,  21,  23;  XVIII,  1, 
2,  40,  41,  42,  43,  45,  51;  XIX,  3,  7,  14,  23,  28;  XX,  5,  29; 
XXI,  6,  8;  XXII,  24,  27,  28;  passim. 

Invicem  occurs  in  twenty  passages,  thus: 

Perplexae  quippe  sunt  istae  duae  civitates  in  hoc  saeculo  invi- 
cemque  permixtae,  I,  35. 

quas  in  hoc  saeculo  perplexas  diximus  invicemque  permixtas,  X,  32. 
Nam  si  duo  sibimet  invicem  fiant  obviam  neque  praeterire,  XIX,  7. 
Cf.  also  IV,  2;  XI,  1;  XII,  21;  XIV,  8,  22,  28;  XV,  4,  6;  XVI, 
6;  XVIII,  7,  13,  17;  XIX,  13,  17;  XXII,  24,  27,  29.  - 

Alterutrum  expressing  reciprocal  relations  is  used  for  the  first 3 


1  Goelzer  (2 ) ,  667. 
3  Schmalz,  620. 


3  Schmalz,  620. 


28 


time  in  Lucius  Annaeus  Floras,  183,  19  R,  manu  alter  utrum 
tenentes.  Among  the  writers  of  the  Christian  period  we  find  it  in 
Jerome,4  Avitus.5 6  In  the  D.  C.  D.,  alterutrum  occurs  as  a  reci¬ 
procal  pronoun  in  the  two  following  passages : 

lam  vero  Punicis  bellis,  cum  inter  utrumque  imperium  victoria 
diu  anceps  atque  incerta  penderet  populique  duo  praevalidi 
impetus  in  alterutrum  fortissimos  et  opulentissimos  agerent, 

III,  18. 

ubi  partium  studia  non  contionum  dissensionibus  variisque  vocibus 
in  alterutrum.  III,  23. 

iv.  Demonstrative  Pronouns. 

Classical  Latinity  defines  precisely  the  use  of  is,  hie,  iste  and  ille . 
Hie 6  and  is  are  distinguished  one  from  the  other  in  that  hie 
always  signifies  an  object  present.  It  is  the  demonstrative  of  the 
first  person.  Is  represents  an  object  already  mentioned  or  about 
to  be  mentioned.  Iste  is  the  pronoun  of  the  second  person.  It 
points  out  something  near,  belonging  or  imputed  to  the  person 
addressed.  It  is  used  in  addressing  opponents,  and  is  thus  fre¬ 
quent  in  contemptuous  expressions.  Ille  points  out  what  is  more 
or  less  remote  in  place,  time  or  thought.  It  is  the  demonstrative 
of  the  third  person.  These  distinctions  carefully  observed  by 
classical  writers  were  uniformly  disregarded  by  Christian  writers. 

Irregularities  in  the  syntax  of  the  demonstrative  pronouns  found 
in  the  D.  C.  D.  are  as  follows : 

In  expressions  of  contrast  iste — ille,  ille — ille  and  ille — iste  are 
used  for  hie — ille  and  ille — hie  in  the  three  following  passages : 

Quis  ergo  est  locus  bonorum  daemonum,  qui  supra  homines,  infra 
deos  istis  praebeant  adiutorium,  illis  ministerium?  IX,  13. 
et  sceleratarum  concatenation  causarum  a  bello  Mariano  atque 
Sullano  ad  bella  Sertorii  et  Catilinae  (quorum  a  Sulla  fuerat 
ille  proscriptus,  ille  nutritus),  III,  30. 

Pax  cum  bello  de  crudelitate  certavit  et  vicit.  Illud  enim  prostravit 
armatos,  ista  nudatos,  III,  28. 

The  following  passages  are  worthy  of  note,  where  Augustine  in 
referring  three  times  to  two  of  the  gods  by  means  of  the  demon- 

4  Goelzer  ( 1 ) ,  412. 

B  Goelzer  (2),  6.63. 

6  Sclimalz,  621. 


29 


stratives,  uses  the  combinations  Me  .  .  .  ista ,  Me  .  .  .  haec  and 
then  the  non-classical  usage  Me  .  .  .  ista  again. 

Huic  monstro  nec  Iani  monstrositas  comparatur.  Ille  in  simula- 
cris  habebat  solam  deformitatem,  ista  in  sacris  deformem 
crudelitatem ;  Me  membra  in  lapidibus  addita,  haec  in  homini- 
bus  perdita.  Hoc  dedecus  tot  Iovis  ipsius  et  tanta  stupra  non 
vincunt.  Ille  inter  femineas  corruptelas  uno  Ganymede 
coelum  infamavit;  ista  tot  mollibus  professis  et  publicis  et 

inquinavit  terram  et  caelo  fecit  iniuriam,  YII,  26. 

\ 

In  discussing  theologia  mythica ,  Augustine  uses  ilia  .  .  .  haec 
six  consecutive  times  and  completes  the  enumeration  with  ilia  .  .  . 
ista ,  thus : 

Nec  fabulosa  igitur  nec  civili  theologia  sempiternam  quisquam 
adipiscitur  vitam.  Ilia  enim  de  diis  turpia  fingendo  seminat, 
haec  favendo  metit;  ilia  mendacia  spargit,  haec  colligit;  ilia 
res  divinas  falsis  criminibus  insectatur,  haec  eorum  criminum 
ludos  in  divinis  rebus  amplectitur;  ilia  de  diis  nefanda  fig- 
menta  hominum  carminibus  personal  haec  ea  deorum  ipsorum 
festivitatibus  consecrat;  facinora  et  flagitia  numinum  ilia 
cantat,  haec  amat;  ilia  prodit  aut  fingit,  haec  autem  aut 
adtestatur  veris  aut  oblectatur  et  falsis.  Ambae  turpes  am- 
baeque  damnabiles;  sed  ilia,  quae  theatrica  est,  publicam  tur- 
pitudinem  profitetur;  ista,  quae  urbana  est,  illius  turpitudine 
ornatur;,  YI,  6. 

In  the  following  passage  the  reverse  takes  place.  Eeferring  to 
two  societies  of  angels  Augustine  uses  illam  .  .  .  istam  four  con¬ 
secutive  times  and  concludes  the  series  with  a  passage  which  con¬ 
tains  a  double  use  of  the  principle  according  to  classical  Latin : 

t 

nos  tamen  has  duas  angelicas  societates,  .  .  .  Mam  in  caelis  cae- 
lorum  habitantem,  istam  deiectam  in  hoc  infimo  aerio  caelo 
tumultuantem ;  Mam  luminosa  pietate  tranquillanp  istam, 
tenebrosis  cupiditatibus  turbulentam ;  Mam  Dei  nutu  cle- 
menter  subvenientem,  iuste  ulciscentem,  istam  suo  fastu  sub¬ 
den  di  et  nocendi  libidine  exaestuantem ;  Mam,  ut  quantum 
vult  consulate  Dei  bonitati  ministranq  istam,  ne  quantum  vult 
noceat7  Dei  potestate  frenatam;  Mam  huic  inludentem,  ut 
nolens  prosit  persecutionibus  suis,  hanc  Mi  invidentem,  cum 
peregrinos  colligit  suos,  XI,  33. 


30 


Cf.  also  I,  28;  II,  11,  14;  VI,  1,  2;  VII,  4;  VIII,  1,  2,  13,  21,  26; 
IX,  2,  4,  15,  22 ;  X,  15 ;  XII,  1 ;  XIII,  4,  8 ;  XIV,  8,  13 ;  XV, 
2;  XVIII,  28,  41,  43;  XIX,  28;  XX,  1;  XXI,  11;  XXII,  4, 
6,  11,  24. 

In  the  following  passage  hie,  is  and  iste  are  used  with  scarcely 
any  difference  in  meaning : 

Hi  motus,  hi  affectus  de  amore  boni  et  de  sancta  caritate  venientes 
si  vitia  vocanda  sunt,  sinamns,  nt  ea,  qnae  vere  vitia  sunt, 
virtutes  vocentnr.  Sed  enm  rectam  rationem  sequantur  istae 
affectiones,  quando  nbi  oportet  adhibentnr,  XIV,  9. 

Ille  is  used  for  is  in  the  two  following  passages : 

et  ideo  potest  a  litteratis  eius  defensoribus  dici  non  esse  apud  in¬ 
feros  inter  illos,  I,  19. 

qui  nec  fuerunt  umquam  nec  futuri  sunt  desertores,  inter  quos 
et  illos,  qui  aeternam  lucem  deserentes  tenebrae  facti  sunt, 
XI,  28. 

Iste,  as  has  been  said  above,  was  used  to  refer  to  the  second 
person.  Hence  it  should  be  confined  to  cases  of  address,  especially 
in  colloquial  expressions.  Cicero  always  uses  iste  with  this  force. 
It  is  found  only  once  in  Caesar  7  and  then  in  the  passage  of  an 
oration  embodied  in  his  narrative. 

The  earliest  evidence  of  a  weakening  of  this  force  appears  in 
Apuleius.8  In  the  Christian  writers  we  find  it  equivalent  almost 
to  a  definite  article.  Cf.  Min.  Felix,  18,  11,  iste  sermo;  Cyprian. 
De  Hab.  Virg.  15p,  isto  in  loco;  Commodian,  1,  25,  19,  isto  libello; 
Ambrose,  1,  8,  32F,  nobis  excursus  iste  processit;  Sulpicius 
Severus,  Chron.  1,  2,  1,  voluminis  istius;  Tertullian,  De  Idol,  19p, 
in  isto  capitulo.  Similar  meanings  of  iste  occur  in  about  thirty- 
two  passages  of  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

Quapropter  in  decern  istis  libris,  etsi  minus  quam  nonnullorum  de 
nobis  expectabat  intentio,  X,  32. 

primumque  dicam,  quern  ad  modum  exordia  duarum  istarum  civi- 
tatum  in  angelorum  diversitate  praecesserint,  XI,  1. 

Nam  ubi  tenebrae  inculpabiles  sunt,  inter  quas  et  lucem  istam  his 
oculis  conspicuam  luminaria  caeli  dividunt,  XI,  20. 


7  B.  G.  7,  77. 

8Koziol,  78. 


31 


Cf.  also  1 ,  8,  13;  VI,  15;  XI,  1,  33;  XV,  1,  27;  XYI,  4,  15,  21, 
24,  26,  28,  35,  36,  38;  XVII,  1,  4,  5,  7,  16;  XVIII,  28;  XIX, 
5,  26;  XX,  15. 

v.  Indefinite  Pronouns. 

1.  quisquam ,  aliquis ,  ullus. 

Quisquam  meaning  a  “  single  one,”  “  any  one  at  all,”  and  ullus 
meaning  “  any  ”  are  used  chiefly  in  negative  sentences  in  classical 
Latin.  In  ecclesiastical  Latin  quisquam  occurs  frequently  in 
affrmative  sentences.  It  also  appears  with  si,  nisi ,  ne  and  num 
instead  of  quis.  These  forms  appear  very  frequently  in  Avitus  ,J 
and  likewise  in  Augustine.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  quisquam  occurs  fifty- 
eight  times  in  negatives  and  forty-five  in  affirmative  sentences. 

(a)  si  with  quisquam  instead  of  quis. 

Si  duas  quisquam  nutrices  adhiberet  infanti,  VI,  9. 

Quod  si  quisquam  dicit,  non  ex  omnium  sed  ex  malorum  daemonum 
numero  esse,  XI,  7. 

ac  si  quisquam  velit  videre  tenebras  vel  audire  silentium,  XII,  7. 
Cf.  also  XI,  5;  XII,  7,  16;  XIV,  3;  XVI,  27;  XIX,  12;  XXI,  5, 
10;  XXII,  20. 

The  five  following  passages,  two  containing  non  quisquam  for 
nemo;  one,  non  quicquam  for  nihil ;  and  two,  non  ullus  for  nullus 
occur  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

Non  tamen  quisquam  putare  debet  aut  frustra  haec  esse  conscripta, 
XV,  27. 

Non  enim  Domino  quisquam  quicquam  rectum  voveret,  XVII,  4. 
non  quo  quicquam  bonis  quandoque  morituris  tale  genus  mortis 
faciat  aliquid,  XV,  24. 

non  gustus  faucium,  non  ullus  corporeus  tactus  accedit,  XI,  27. 

Cur  enim  esset  ulla  poena  in  quibus  non  essent  ulla  punienda? 
XIII,  3. 

(?)  Si  with  aliquis  instead  of  quis. 

Aliquis,  the  indefinite  pronoun  of  an  affirmative  proposition, 
occurs  in  about  four  hundred  and  seventy  passages  in  the  D.  C.  D., 
fifty-one  of  which  are  used  in  negative  sentences. 


9  Goelzer  (2),  668. 


32 


Verum  si  aliquis  audeat,  vincit  nempe  istos,  XXI,  17. 

In  classical  Latin  aliquis  for  ullus  is  not  ordinarily  used  with 
the  preposition  sine.  Eight  instances  of  this  irregularity  appear 
in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

qnod  fieri  fortasse  sine  carnis  aliqua  voluptate  non  potuit,  I,  16. 
velnt  ipsius  Romae  filiam,  sed  sine  aliquo  daemonnm  templo  simu- 
lacroque  concessit,  Y,  25. 

quod  tempus  sine  aliqua  mobili  mutabilitate  non  est,  XI,  6. 

Cf.  also  XII,  21,  22;  XYI,  2;  XIX,  13;  XXII,  24. 

Two  passages  containing  aliquis  .  .  .  aliquis  for  alius  .  .  .  alius 
occur,  thus : 

Hue  accedebat,  quod,  ut  sunt  alterna  bellorum,  aliquae  parentum 
ferro  amiserunt  viros,  aliquae  utrorumque  ferro  et  parentes 
et  viros.  III,  13. 

quod  aliqui  alienant  a  Dei  voluntate,  aliqui  ex  ilia  etiam  hoc  pen- 
dere  confirmant,  Y,  1. 


2.  Quispiam. 

Quispiam 10  in  pre-classical  Latin  differed  very  little  from  aliquis 
but  it  wTas  more  extensively  used.  Cicero  does  not  use  it  as  fre¬ 
quently  in  negative  sentences  as  quisquam.  It  is  seldom  used  in 
the  Imperial  epoch.  Sidonius  Apollinaris,  a  contemporary  of 
Augustine  revived  its  use.  It  occurs  in  seven  passages  in  the 
D.  C.  D.,  in  three  of  which  it  replaces  quis,  thus : 

(a)  nisi  or  si  with  quispiam  for  quis. 

Nisi  forte  quispiam  sic  defendat  istos  deos,  III,  15. 
nisi  forte  quispiam  ex  ipsa  numerositate  annorum  nobis  ingerat 
quaestionem,  XY,  9. 

Exempli  gratia,  velut  si  quispiam,  quod  hie  scriptum  est,  XY,  26. 

3.  Quicumque. 

Quicumque,  at  different  periods  in  the  development  of  the  lan¬ 
guage,  weakens  as  an  indefinite  relative  pronoun,  and  assumes 
a  very  strong  adjectival  force.  Schmalz  11  cites  Cicero  as  using  it 
rarely. 


10  Schmalz,  625. 

11  Schmalz,  627. 


33 


Forty-four  out  of  one  hundred  and  four  passages  in  which  it  is 
used  in  the  D.  C.  D.  have  the  adjectival  use  thus: 

quaecumque  tales  viri  in  suis  litter  is  multorum  deorum  ludibria 
posuerunt,  IV,  31. 

et  quaecumque  turpia  geruntur  in  theatris,  VIII,  5. 
quibus  potius  sit  credendum,  respondeant  Platonici,  respondeant 
quicumque  philosophy  X,  16. 

Cf.  also  IV,  23;  X,  3;  XVI,  8;  XXI,  26;  XXII,  8;  passim. 

4.  Quisquis  and  quisque. 

Quisquis,  with  the  very  general  meaning  “  whoever/’  has  no 
limitations  in  classical  Latin;  while  quisque  meaning  “each,” 
“each  by  himself,”  is  applied  to  a  group  of  more  than  two. 
Quisque  is  also  used  with  pronouns  (immediately  following  them), 
ordinals  and  units.  In  the  Ecclesiastical  period  quisque  and 
quisquis  are  often  used  synonymously.  The  following  examples 
are  especially  to  be  noted : 

(a)  Quisque  for  quisquam. 

Transeuntium  quippe  intentio  ipsa  mutatur  de  vetere  ad  novum, 
ut  iam  non  quisque  intendat  accipere  carnalem,  sed  spiritalem 
felicitatem,  XVII,  7. 

post  aliquot  dies  quod  audierunt  mente  retineant  et  vix  quisque 
reperiatur  illorum,  XXII,  8. 

(/?)  Si  quisque  for  si  quis. 

An  vero  tarn  insulsa  perversitas  cor  evertit  et  a  consideratione 
veritatis  avertit,  ut,  si  se  quisque  interimere  debet,  I,  27. 


5.  Uterque. 

In  the  Classical  period  uterque  meaning  “  each  ”  is  used  of  two 
individuals  and  its  plural  utrique  for  two  sets  or  parties.  Augus¬ 
tine  adheres  strictly  to  this  distinction. 

Cf.  I,  8,  28;  II,  11,  14;  III,  13,  14;  VI,  6;  IX,  4,  13;  XII,  1; 
XIV,  26;  XV,  10,  13;  XVII,  4,  44;  XVIII,  43;  XIX,  4,  17. 


Classical  usage 12  does  not  allow  the  combination  uterque  uterque. 
The  joining  of  alius  alium,  alter  alteri ,  and  uter  utri  in  the  com¬ 
bination  of  double  questions  is  regular  as:  Ut  diiudicari  posset , 


12Schxnalz,  627. 
3C 


34 


uter  utri  anteferendus  videretur ,  Caes.  B.  G.  5,  44,  14.  No  doubt 
the  doubling  process  of  these  pronouns  was  extended  to  uterque. 
One  passage  with  this  irregularity  occurs  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

An  uterque  utrumque  implet,  IV,  10. 


vi.  Pronominal  Adjectives. 


1.  Tantus,  quant  us,  tot,  quot. 


The  meanings  of  the  pronominal  adjectives  tot,  “  so  many/* 
quot,  “how  many/’  tantus,  “so  great ”  and  quantus,  “how  great  ” 
were  strictly  followed  by  the  writers  of  the  Classical  period.  As 
early  as  Propertius,13  however,  a  variation  in  the  meaning  of  the 
pronominal  adjectives  appears,  and  we  see  the  plural  of  quantus 
being  used  for  quot. 

Down  through  the  Empire  and  in  the  Ecclesiastical  period,  the 
change  in  meaning  was  gradually  extended,  and  we  find  Augustine, 
in  his  Sermons,  Letters  and  D.  C.  D.  frequently  using  tarn  magnus 
for  tantus,  quam  multi  for  quot  and  tarn  multus  for  tot,  thus : 


(a)  Tam  magnus  for  tantus. 

Merito  certe  laudant  virtutem  tarn  magna  infelicitate  maiorem, 
I,  15. 

quo  Roma  tarn  magna  facta  est,  IY,  9. 

et  ex  illorum  numero  erat,  cuius  tam  magnam  divinamque  sen- 
tentiam  .  .  .  X,  25. 

quod  a  nullo  coepit  .  .  .  sed  tam  magna  spatia,  quanta  ilia  summa 
comprehendit  annorum,  XII,  13. 

Cf.  also  IY,  13,  15;  X,  21;  XII,  21;  XIII,  17;  XY,  14;  XYI,  18; 
XVII,  13,  18;  XIX,  7,  23;  XX,  28,  30;  XXII,  6,  7,  12,  24, 
25;  passim. 


(/?)  Quam  multi  for  quot. 

Yides  quanta  hinc  dici  et  quam  mult  a  possent,  III,  13. 
ilia  itidem  ingens  pestilentia,  quamdiu  saeviit,  quam  multos  pere- 
mit!  Ill,  17. 

quam  multa  ad  hostem  oppida  defecerunt,  quam  multa  capta  et 
oppressa!  Ill,  19. 

Cf.  also  IY,  11 ;  YI,  2 ;  XIY,  15 ;  XY,  27 ;  XXII,  8,  11,  24 ;  passim, 
(y)  Tam  multi  for  tot. 


13  Sehmalz,  620. 


35 


iam  praesidibus  atque  tutoribus  vix  post  tam  multos  annos  ab 
Urbi  condita  .  .  .  Ill,  9. 

qui  tam  multa  legit,  ut  aliquid  ei  scribere  vacuisse  miremur;  tam 
multa  scripsit,  YI,  2. 

Cf.  also  III,  12,  13,  15,  17,  29;  IV,  13,  20,  25;  V,  2,  6 ;  VII,  35; 
X,  3,  8,  19,  32;  XII,  21;  XY,  5,  8,  12,  13,  14,  20,  27;  XYII, 
8,  13;  XVIII,  13,  22;  XIX,  1;  XX,  2,  20,  24;  XXI,  7,  12, 
18;  XXII,  3,  5,  7,  8,  12;  passim. 

Alter  and  Alius. 

Alter  is  related  to  alius  as  the  comparative  is  to  the  superlative. 
Alter  meaning  “the  other”  or  “one  of  two”  and  alius  meaning 
“  other  ”  or  “  another,”  where  more  than  two  are  thought  of,  are 
both  used  as  substantives  and  adjectives  in  classical  Latin.  The 
writers  of  the  Classical  period  except  in  a  few  instances  in  Caesar14 
and  Cicero  15  were  very  careful  to  keep  the  meaning  of  these  two 
words  sharply  defined.  In  colloquial  Latin,  however,  a  confusion 
arose.  Alius  is  used  for  alter  and  alter  for  alius.  This  usage  ex¬ 
tended  to  the  literature,  and  we  find  it  frequently  in  Augustine 
and  in  other  ecclesiastical  writers.16 

The  following  are  from  the  D.  C.  D. : 

(a)  Alius  for  alter. 

Numquid  hoc  dicitur,  quia  uno  ambulante  alius  sedebat,  et  alio 
dormiente  alius  vigilabat,  et  alio  loquente  tacebat  alius,  Y,  4. 
At  enim  alius  est  ille,  alius  iste,  quamvis  eodem  nomine  nuncu- 
pentur,  VIII,  26. 

ex  eis  duo  filii  Abrahae,  unus  de  ancilla,  alius  de  libera,  XIII,  21. 
Cf.  also  III,  14;  IY,  3;  XI,  33. 

(/?)  Alter  for  alius. 

sed  quam  quaeque  pars  habet  vitam  a  ceteris  separatim,  si  praeter 
alteram  irasci  altera  potest,  IY,  11. 
cum  omnes  occupati  sint  officiis  et  operibus  propriis,  nec  alter 
inruat  in  alterius ?  IY,  13. 

quod  tria  genera  theologiae  dicit  esse,  id  est  rationes  quae  de  diis 
explicatur,  eorumque  unum  mythicon  (appellari),  alterum 
physicon,  tertium  civile?  YI,  5. 

Cf.  also  XY,  16;  XYI,  3,  38;  XYIII,  36;  XIX,  2;  XX,  5. 

14  b.  a.  l,  i,  l. 

15  Brut.  325. 

16  Schmalz,  629;  Goelzer  (1),  417;  Goelzer  (2),  673;  Bonnet,  278. 


/ 


CHAPTER  IY— ADVERBS. 


The  fundamental  function  of  the  adverb  is  to  modify  verbs, 
adjectives  and  more  rarely  other  adverbs. 

In  all  the  periods  of  the  language  this  function  is  largely  sta¬ 
tionary.  Slight  variations  from  classical  Latin  which  occur  in  the 
Christian  period  are :  a  more  frequent  and  extended  use  of  adverbs, 
and  certain  changes  in  their  meaning.  This  was  brought  about  by 
the  greater  need  felt  for  expressing  new  shades  of  meaning. 

Frequently  unde  is  used  for  igitur  as  in  Jerome,  unde  obsecro 
te  ignoscas  tarditate  meae  .  .  .  Ep.  99,  2;  adhuc  for  etiam  turn, 
as  in  Arnobius,  adhuc  parvi  nutricum  sub  alimonia  constituti, 
VII,  42 ;  undique  for  apud  omnes  as  in  Avitus,  Satis  undique 
constat  vitali  indicio  praecedere  saepe  timorem,  IY,  353 ;  and  so  on. 
Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  in  common  with  other  writers  1  of  the 
period  shows  similar  examples. 

i.  Adverbs  of  Place. 

Frequently  in  ecclesiastical  Latin  unde  is  used  with  the  value 
of  quo  modo.  The  point  of  view  evidently  changed  from  that  of 
source  to  one  of  manner.  In  the  following  twenty  passages  Augus¬ 
tine  uses  unde  for  quo  modo ,  thus : 

Unde  ergo  stetit  Minervae  simulacrum?  Ill,  8. 
unde  hoc  accidere  potuit,  cum  eorum  conceptus  diversum  tempus 
habere  non  possit?  Y,  5. 

Hoc  autem  malum  esse  unde  demonstrant?  XXII,  25. 
unde  dicebat,  si  non  prophetabat,  XVII,  4. 

quod  unde  fieri  potest  .  .  .  hoc  est  ipsam  voluntatem  malam? 
XII,  6. 

Unde  enim  apud  Vergilium  pius  Aeneas  laudabiliter  dolet  hostem 
etiam  sua  peremptum  manu?  Unde  Marcellus  Syracusanam 
civitatem  recolens  eius  paulo  ante  culmen  et  gloriam  sub 
manus  suas  subito  concidisse  communem  cogitans  condicionem 
flendo  miseratus  est?  Ill,  14. 

Cf.  also  III,  2,  17;  IY,  20;  Y,  5;  XII,  6;  XIY,  4,  8,  18;  XIX,  5, 
8;  XXI,  3;  XXII,  5,  8,  29. 

4 

1  Goelzer  (1),  424;  Goelzer  (2),  681;  Gabarrou,  164;  Bayard,  272. 

36 


37 


Augustine,  in  his  use  of  demonstrative  adverbs,  conforms  to 
classical  Latinity  more  frequently  than  when  using  the  corre¬ 
sponding  pronouns.2  Instances  of  this  regularity  in  the  D.  C.  D. 
are  to  be  found  in  I,  4,  28;  II,  26;  VII,  17  etc. 

In  the  two  following  passages  Augustine  deviates  from  classical 
usage : 

Illuc  .  .  .  spolia  portabantur,  .  .  .  hue  .  .  .  reportatum  est.  Ibi 
(=  illic)  amissa,  hie  servata  libertas;  ibi  (=  illic)  clausa, 
hie  interdicta  captivitas ;  ibi  possidendi  a  dominantibus  hosti- 
bus  premebantur,  hue  liberandi  a  miserantibus  ducebantur, 
I,  4. 

Uterque  quidem  de  semine  Abrahae;  sed  ilium  genuit  demonstrans 
consuetudo  naturam,  ilium  vero  dedit  promissio  significans 
gratiam;  ibi  (=  illic)  humanus  usus  ostenditur,  hie  divinum 
beneficium  commendatur,  XV,  2. 

n.  Adverbs  of  Time. 

In  classical  prose  adhuc  means  “to  this  moment,”  “up  to  this 
time.”  In  the  poets  and  even  in  Cicero  we  meet  adhuc  with  the 
value  of  etiam  turn,  thus:  Nemo  adhuc  docuerat,  Acad.  2,  2. 
Augustine  uses  adhuc  in  the  sense  of  etiam  turn  in  the  following 
passages  of  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Haec  Cicero  fatebatur,  longe  quidem  post  mortem  Africani,  quern 
in  suis  libris  fecit  de  re  publica  disputare,  adhuc  tamen  ante 
adventum  Christi,  II,  21. 
adhuc  tamen  ante  adventum  Christi,  II,  21. 

Adhuc  autem  meliorem  partium  civilium  Sulla  dux  fuit,  adhuc 
armis  rem  publicam  recuperare  moliebatur,  III,  7. 

Deinde  in  illo  populo  cum  adhuc  nemo  regnaret,  XVII,  4. 

Cf.  also  IV,  23;  VII,  23;  IX,  5;  XVII,  7,  8;  XVIII,  3,  6,  7,  10, 
15;  XIX,  3,  4,  6,  13,  22;  XX,  2,  29;  XXI,  4,  13;  XXII,  8, 
27;  passim. 

hi.  Adverbs  of  Manner. 

Ceterum  means  “  for  the  rest,”  “  otherwise,”  in  classical  Latin. 
It  took  over  the  restrictive  sense  of  “  but  ”  in  the  Imperial  epoch. 
Augustine  uses  it  in  this  sense  in  the  D.  C.  D.  in  the  twelve  fol¬ 
lowing  passages: 


3  Cf.  Chapter  III  on  Pronouns. 


38 


ad  vocem  anseris  cito  redierunt,  lit  saltern  Capitolinum  collem,  qui 
remanserat,  tuerentur ;  ceterum  ad  alia  defendenda  serius  sunt 
redire  commoniti,  III,  8. 

Ceterum  quis  ferat  dici  atque  contendi  deos  illos,  YI,  1. 

Ceterum  absit  a  mente  Christiana,  I,  25. 

Ceterum  qui  futuri  sint  pro  meritis  praemiorum  etiam  gradus 
honorem  atque  gloriarum,  XXII,  30. 

Ceterum  eos,  qui  putant  minaciter  potius  veraciter  dictum,  XXI,  24. 
Cf.  also  II,  20;  X,  11;  XII,  4,  10;  XX,  26. 

Scilicet  in  classical  Latin  means  “  certainly,”  “  naturally.”  Later 
on  it  was  used  with  the  meaning  of  id  est ,  as  in  Jerome,  hie 
locus  in  Genesi  multo  aliter  invenitur,  quod  scilicet  Abraham 
emerit  .  .  .  speluncam  duplicem,  Ep.  57,  10;  and  in  Arnobius, 
medietas  ergo  quaedam  et  animarum  anceps  ambiguaque  na- 
tura  locum  philosophiae  peperit  et  causam  cur  appeteretur 
invenit,  dum  periculum  scilicet  ex  malis  iste  formidat  ad- 
missis,  alter  concipit  spes  bonas,  II,  31. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  scilicet  to  mean  id  est  in  the 
following  passages. 

unde  intellegitur  totam  eius  theologian,  earn  ipsam  scilicet  natura- 
lem,  cui  plurimum  tribuit,  VII,  5. 
quoniam  acutissimi  homines  atque  doctissimi,  a  quibus  ista  con- 
scripta  sunt,  ambas  improbandas  intellegebant,  et  illam  scilicet 
fabulosam  et  istam  civilem,  YI,  8. 

Haec  igitur  duo  incredibilia,  resurrectionem  scilicet  nostri  corporis 
in  aeternum  et  rem  tarn  incredibilem  mundum  esse  credi- 
turum,  XXII,  5. 

Abdias  .  .  .  omnium  brevissimus  prophetarum,  adversus  Iduma- 
eam  loquitur,  gentem  scilicet  Esau,  XVIII,  31. 

Cf.  also  I,  27,  30;  III,  28;  V,  12;  X,  6,  16;  XI,  1,  29,  30;  XIII, 

10,  21;  XIY,  20;  XV,  17,  20,  22,  23;  XYI,  32,  41;  XVII,  7; 

XX,  6 ;  passim. 

iv.  Adverbs  of  Quantity. 

Magis  in  classical  Latin  means  “more.”  It  is  the  comparative 
of  action  or  quality.  In  ecclesiastical  Latin  it  is  used  to  a  great 
extent  for  potius  which  also  means  “more,”  and  “rather”  or 

“  sooner.”  Magis  attributes  a  higher  degree  to  one  of  the  objects 

compared,  whereas  potius  actually  prefers  it. 


39 


In  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  magis  for  potius  in  the  following 
passages : 

Proinde  ista  omnia,  (id  est)  curatio  funeris,  conditio  sepulturae, 
pompa  exequiarum,  magis  sunt  vivorum  solacia  quam  subsidia 
mortuorum,  I,  12. 

Talis  enim  ab  eis  Lucretia  magis  credita  est,  quae  se  nullo  adul¬ 
ter  ino  potuerit  maculare  consensu,  I,  19. 
quamvis  et  ea  ipsa  plerique  magis  naturae  corporalibus  causis  quam 
operibus  divinae  mentis  adsignent,  XII,  24. 

Cf.  also  I,  22;  II,  13,  20,  23,  25,  27;  III,  15;  V,  9;  VII,  26;  XIY, 
7;  XY,  27;  XYII,  4;  XX,  24;  passim. 

Valcle  in  classical  Latin  means,  “intensely,”  “greatly,”  “exceed¬ 
ingly.”  Frequently  in  Christian  Latin  3  it  is  used  to  intensify 
a  comparative  and  often  to  accompany  a  superlative. 

In  two  passages  in  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  valde  in  an 
unusual  sense.  In  the  first,  valde  is  used  with  a  positive  for  a 
superlative;  and  in  the  second  a  superlative  is  intensified  still 
more  by  means  of  valde ,  thus: 

Qui  cum  ei  protectionem  mercedemque  promitteret  valde  multam, 
XYI,  23. 

Sunt  enim  inter  se  valde  proximi  patres  et  filii,  XX,  29. 

v.  Adverbs  of  Modality. 

1.  Interrogative  Adverb s. 

In  classical  Latin  the  particles  ne  and  num  not  utrum  are  used 
to  introduce  a  single  indirect  question.  A  confusion  arising  between 
the  particles  used  for  alternative  questions  led  to  the  use  of  utrum 
for  ne  or  num.  Thus  in  Jerome  we  read,  in  potestate  nostra  est, 
utrum  velimus  esse  perfecte,  Matth.  Ill,  19,  21.  In  the  D.  C.  D. 
we  find  the  following  passages  containing  single  indirect  questions 
introduced  by  utrum  instead  of  ne  or  num : 

TJtrum  autem  honi  Patris  et  boni  Filii  Spiritus  sanctus,  quia  com¬ 
munis  ambohus  est,  recte  'bonitas  dici  possit  amborum,  non 
audeo  temerariam  praecipitare  sententiam,  XI,  24. 
quaero  utrum  in  aliqua  natura  fuerit,  XII,  6. 


*Schmalz,  613. 


40 


satis  diximus;  de  amore  autem,  quo  amantur,  utrum,  et  ipse  amor 
ametur,  non  dictum  est,  XI,  28. 

cum  quaeritur  utrum  sit  nocens,  XIX,  6. 

Hoc  quippe  in  saeculo  isto  prorsus  latet,  quia  et  qui  videtur  stare, 
utrum  sit  casurus,  et  qui  videtur  iacere,  utrum  sit  surrecturus, 
incertum  est,  XX,  7. 

Unde  merito  quaeritur,  utrum  recte  fecerint  Saguntini,  XXII,  6. 

Cf.  also  I,  9,  21,  22,  26;  III,  4,  12;  IY,  3,  23;  YI,  1,  2,  9 ;  YII, 
3,  5,  23;  VIII,  3,  10,  11,  24;  IX,  1,  4,  5,  7,  14;  XII,  16,  21; 
XIII,  3,  16,  22,  23;  XIY,  7,  8,  22;  XY,  15,  16,  22,  23;  XYI, 
8;  XVIII,  38,  43;  XX,  8;  XXI,  3;  XXII,  2,  6,  8,  12,  24,  29; 
passim. 


In  alternative  questions  asking  which  of  two  things  is  true, 
utrum  .  .  an,  ne  .  .  .  an,  or  an  is  used  in  classical  Latin.  In¬ 
stead  of  these  combinations  we  find  utrum  .  .  .  aut,  and  utrum 
.  .  .  vel  as  follows  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 


Sed  utrum  potuerit  Venus  ex  concubitu  Anchisae  Aenean  parere 
vel  Mars  ex  concubitu  filiae  Xumitoris  Romulum  gignere,  in 
medio  relinquamus,  III,  5. 

Nee  ad  causam,  quam  nunc  agimus,  interest,  utrum  hoc  fieri 
Romulus  iusserit  aut  Romulus  fecerit,  III,  6. 

The  interrogative  adverbs  cur  and  quare  are  frequently  replaced 
in  ecclesiastical  Latin  by  ut  quid.  Thus  in  Jerome  we  read,  Ut 
quid  mihi  ieiunatis?  Ep.  22,  37.  The  following  is  a  total  list  of 
the  passages  from  the  D.  C.  D.  containing  ut  quid  for  cur  or  quare: 

vel  eis  quos  diligunt  prosunt,  ut  quid  coluntur,  ut  quid  tanto  studio 
colendi  requiruntur?  II,  23. 

Ut  quid  ergo  constituit  Romanis  deos  Ianum,  Iovem,  Martem, 
Picum,  Faunum,  Tiberinum,  Herculem  et  si  quos  alios?  Ut 
quid  Titus  Tatius  addidit  Saturnum,  Opem,  Solem,  Lunam, 
Vulcanum,  Lucem  et  quoscumque  alias  addidit,  inter  quos 
etiam  deam  Cluacinam,  Felicitate  neglecta?  Ut  quid  Numa 
tot  deos  et  tot  deas  sine  ista?  IY,  23. 

Cf.  also  I,  18;  IY,  18,  19;  Y,  18;  YII,  22;  XVIII,  30;  XXII,  24. 


2.  Negative  Adverbs. 

(a)  ne  for  non. 

In  classical  Latin  the  negative  particle  with  the  hortatory  and 
jussive  subjunctive  is  usually  ne. 


41 


Three  passages  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  one  containing  a  hortatory 
subjunctive  and  two  containing  jussive  subjunctives  with  non  for 
ne ,  thus: 

Quae  cum  ita  sint,  non  tribuamus  dandi  regni  atque  imperii 
potestatem  nisi  Deo  vero,  .  .  .  V,  21. 
si  fabulis  non  credunt,  non  obtendant  Troiana  periuria,  III,  2. 
Ignoscant  autem  qui  haec  legunt  et  cuncta  ilia  noverunt,  et  de  his 
quae  fortasse  firmiora  me  praetermisisse  vel  intellegunt  vel 
existimant,  non  querantur,  XVII,  19. 

(/?)  nec  .  .  .  quidem  for  ne  .  .  .  quidem. 

One  passage  occurs  with  nec  for  ne — quidem ,  thus : 

Non  solum  enim  non  erit  tale,  quale  nunc  est  in  quavis  optima 
valetudine,  sed  nec  tale  quidem  quale  fuit  in  primis  hominibus 
ante  peccatum,  XIII,  20. 

(y)  aut  .  .  .  vel  for  aut  .  .  .  aut. 

In  classical  Latin  aut  .  .  aut  excludes  one  of  two  ideas.  In 
the  following  passage  either  the  fire  did  not  know  Metellus  or  the 
goddess  of  the  fire  was  present,  hence  aut  .  .  aut  should  be  used. 

Neque  enim  vel  ipsum  ignis  agnovit,  aut  vero  erat  ibi  numen,  quod 
non  etiam  si  fuisset,  fugisset,  III,  18. 

Augustine,  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  without  changing  the  meaning  of  the 
adverbs  tantummodo  —  “  only,”  utique  —  “  certainly,”  omnino  — 
“  altogether,”  “  entirely,”  propterea — “  therefore,”  “  on  that  ac¬ 
count,”  seems  to  have  a  peculiar  fondness  for  their  use.  Their 
frequent  recurrence  and  their  occasional  use  in  a  meaning  more 
emphatic  than  is  usual  in  classical  Latin  is  a  special  characteristic 
of  Augustine’s  style. 


CHAPTER  V— VOICE  AND  TENSE. 


i.  Voice  of  the  Verb. 

The  functions  of  the  active  and  passive  voice  of  the  verb,  as 
found  in  classical  Latin,  have,  in  general,  been  preserved  intact 
in  the  Ecclesiastical  period  of  Latin  literature. 

1.  Use  of  the  Passive  Voice. 

In  the  ecclesiastical  Latin  we  find  the  passive  system  much  more 
frequently  used  than  it  was  in  classical  times.  The  frequent  use 
by  Christian  writers  of  the  impersonal  passive  forms  is  a  definite 
proof  of  the  vitality  of  the  passive  conjugation  during  the  Ecclesi¬ 
astical  period. 

The  following  are  representative  passages  from  Augustine’s 

D.  C.D.: 

r 

Hoc  si  aegre  ferendum  est,  omnibus,  qui  in  hanc  vitam  procreati 
sunt,  utique  commune  est,  I,  11. 

Quid  autem  interest,  quo  mortis  genere  vita  ista  finiatur,  quando 
ille,  cui  finitur ,  iterum  mori  non  cogitur?  I,  11. 

Advert endum  est  igitur  duas  res  promissas  abrahae,  XVI,  16. 
et  cum  in  Iudaea  atque  Samaria  plurimi  credidissent,  et  in  alias 
gentes  iturn  est ,  XVIII,  50. 

Inde  ad  me  curritur,  XXII,  8. 

Cf.  also  I,  13,  19,  20,  21;  III,  5;  IV,  18;  VII,  19,  24,  33;  VIII, 
15,  23,  25;  IX,  4;  XIV,  10;  XV,  18;  XVI,  10;  XVII,  6; 
XX,  20;  XXII,  8. 

iSometimes  we  find  a  passive  infinitive  in  the  D.  C.  D.  where  we 
would  expect  a  substantive  clause  of  result,  especially  after  facere, 
thus : 

ut  ilium  primo  faceret  mirabiliter  vinci  (=ut  vinceretur)  V,  23. 
qui  se  colendos  pro  ipsis  mortuis,  quos  deos  putari  (==  ut  puta- 
rentur)  fecerant ,  VII,  35. 

ubi  et  Romanos  et  Graecos  et  Aegyptios,  qui  de  sapientiae  nomine 
gloriati  sunt,  fecit  intellegi  (=  ut  Romanos  et  Graecos  in- 
tellegeremus),  VIII,  10. 

42 


43 


Cf .  also  XV,  1 ;  XVI,  5,  32 ;  XVIII,  25 ;  XXI,  25 ;  XXII,  8. 

Especially  frequently  does  the  passive  infinitive  occur  with  im¬ 
personal  verbs,  thus : 

quod  in  eos  belli  iure  fieri  licuisset ,  II,  2. 

magis  interpretibus  ut  possunt  seu  volunt  dubia  coniectantibus 
credi  solet ,  III,  17. 

solet  enim  et  una  res  duobus  nominibus  appellari ,  IV,  18. 

Cf.  also  II,  27;  V,  9;  VI,  6;  XI,  25;  XV,  3,  27;  XX,  20,  30; 
XXII,  8 ;  passim. 

2.  Transitive  verbs  taken  absolutely. 

As  a  general  rule,  transitive  verbs  in  Latin  are  followed  by  their 
direct  complements  in  the  accusative  case.  It  happens  in  all  lan¬ 
guages  that  a  transitive  verb  may  be  used  intransitively,  and  then 
we  consider  the  action  signified  by  the  verb  as  independent  of  an 
object  on  which  it  might  be  exercised  directly.  Thus  in  Latin  are 
amare,  potare,  facer e  etc.  sometimes  used.  We  say  these  verbs  are 
used  absolutely.  By  no  means  is  this  usage  extended  to  all  transi¬ 
tive  verbs,  but  in  the  writers  of  the  Christian  period  this  usage  is 
somewhat  extended.  For  example,  in  Jerome  we  see:  postquam 
epistolam  tuae  sancitatis  accepi,  confestim,  accito  notario,  ut 
acciperet  impetravi,  Ep.  36,  1 ;  in  A vitus,  Librantis  pondere  verbi, 
I,  14 ;  in  Arnobius,  quibus  ex  causis  pili  nigrorem  ingenitum  ponant 
neque  omnes  pariter  sed  paulatim  adiciendo ,  II,  7. 

The  following  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

qui  nolunt  advert  ere  de  quanta  .  .  .  liberet,  IV,  31.  Cf.  also  V,  7 ; 

VII,  1,  29;  XIII,  24;  XIX,  1;  XX,  13;  XXI,  26;  XXII,  30. 
Suscepit  enim  Philus  ipse  disputationem  eorum,  qui  sentirent  sine 
iniustitia  geri  non  posse  rem  publicam,  purgans  praecipue,  ne 
hoc  ipse  sentire  crederetur,  II,  21. 
sed  ad  Iohannem  in  Aegypti  eremo  constitutum  .  .  .  misit  atque 
ab  eo  nuntium  victor iae  certissimum  accepit,  V,  26. 

Nee  movere  debet  ad  hoc  non  credendum,  XVII,  14. 

3.  Deponent  verbs  used  in  a  passive  sense. 

The  confusion  which  arose  from  deponents  -being  used  passively 
already  existed  in  clasiscal  Latin.  We  find  in  Cicero  the  participle 
of  the  deponent  verb  metiri  used  as  a  passive,  thus :  Mensa  spatia 
conficere,  N.  D.  227. 


44 


Deponents  used  passively  are  found  in  Jerome/  Avitus,1 2 
Arnobius 3  and  Cyprian.4 

One  passage  in  the  D.  C.  D.  occurs  containing  a  deponent  used 
in  a  passive  sense,  thus : 

et  ligna  eius  omnes  utiles  disciplinas  et  lignorum  fructus  mores 
piorum  et  lignum  vitae  ipsam  bonorum  omnium  matrem  sapi- 
entiam  et  lignum  scientiae  boni  et  mali  transgressi  mandati 
experimentum,  XIII,  21. 

In  several  instances  we  find  Augustine  deviating  from  classical 
usage  in  the  forms  of  coepi  and  desinere.  Regularly  the  passives 
of  coepi  and  desinere  are  used  with  a  passive  infinitive.  In  the 
D.  C.  D.  the  following  active  forms  with  passive  infinitives  occur : 
ilia  atque  ilia  insula  incoli  coeperit ,  XII,  10. 

hoc  est  esse  in  morte,  ex  quo  in  illo  agi  coeperit  ipsa  mors,  XIII,  10. 

quod  promitti  coepit  his  verbis,  XVI,  16. 

quod  usque  adeo  fieri  iam  desierat  .  .  .  XVIII,  24. 

Cf.  also  XVII,  8;  XVIII,  6,  16,  20,  25;  XX,  8. 

ii.  Tenses. 

1.  Tenses  in  independent  clauses. 

In  ecclesiastical  Latin,  the  tenses  in  general  retained  the  origi¬ 
nal  value  which  they  had  in  the  Classical  period.  Certain  varia¬ 
tions  in  usage,  however,  crept  from  colloquial  Latin  into  the  litera¬ 
ture  of  all  periods.  Very  frequently  we  note  the  present  taking 
the  place  of  the  future.  This  usage  5  appears  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree  in  all  writers.  Thus  we  read  in  Caesar,  tuemini  castra, 
ego  reliquas  porfas  circumeo  et  castrorum  praesidia  confirmo,  B.  C. 
3,  94,  6;  in  Cicero,  quid  me  auctor  es?  advolone  an  maneo?  Ad. 
att.  40,  2 ;  in  Avitus,  Talis  in  argento  non  fulget  gratia,  I,  252. 
We  also  find  the  perfect  infinitive  used  for  the  present,  the  pluper¬ 
fect  tense  for  the  perfect  or  imperfect,  frequent  irregularity  of 
tense  sequence,  and  often  in  the  compound  tenses,  fui,  fuero ,  fueram 
used  for  sum ,  ero ,  emm.  The  latter  phenomenon  is  due  to  the 

1  Goelzer  (1),  351. 

2  Goelzer  (2),  20. 

3  Gabarrou,  128. 

4  Bayard,  220. 

8  Schmalz,  484. 


45 


fact  that  the  perfect  passive  participle  has  come  to  be  felt  merely 
as  a  passive  participle  without  any  connotation  of  time.  The 
temporal  idea  accordingly  has  to  be  expressed  in  the  auxiliary. 

The  frequency  of  the  above  variations  from  classical  norms  may 
be  seen  in  Gregory/  Cyprian/  Avitus,6 7 8  Arnobius,9  Prudentius  10 
etc. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  variations  from  classical  Latin 
appear : 

(a)  Future  perfect  tense  for  the  simple  future. 

In  the  Pre-classical  period,  especially  in  Plautus  and  Terence, 
the  future  perfect  is  frequently  used  for  a  simple  future,  thus: 
Bene  merente  bene  profuerit,  Plautus,  Capt.,  315. 

Occasionally  we  find  it  even  in  the  Classical  period.  In  Caesar 
we  read:  Ego  certe  meum  officium  rei  publicae  praestitero,  B.  G. 
4,  23,  3;  and  in  Cicero,  Tu  invita  mulieres  ego  accivero  pueros, 
Att.  5,  1,  3.  A  revival  of  this  usage  is  found  in  the  Imperial 
epoch,  and  it  occurs  frequently  in  Christian  Latin.  We  find  many 
occurrences  of  its  use  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

Q,uis  hoc  negaverit  ?  II,  4. 

Dixerit  aliquis ;  Itane  tu  ista  credis  ?  Ill,  4. 

Et  cetera,  quae  sequuntur  in  verbis  praenuntiantis  Dei,  nullus 
dubitaverit  ad  Israeliticum  populum  pertinere,  XVI,  24. 

Cf.  also  V,  19,  24;  VII,  6;  XII,  16;  XV,  13;  XVII,  15;  XVIII, 
1,  35 ;  XIX,  1 ;  XX,  1,  30 ;  XXI,  1 ;  passim. 

(ft)  Perfect  infinitive  for  present. 

We  find  the  perfect  infinitive  fuisse,  in  the  D.  C.  D.  used  for 
the  present  in  compound  tenses  where  we  would  expect  to  find  esse. 

quae  dementia  est  existimare  his  tutoribus  Eoman  sapienter  fuisse 
commissam  et  nisi  eos  amisisset  non  potuisse  vastari?  I,  3. 
ut  hoc  miserae  Troiae  facerent  eamque  Graecis  diruendam  exuren- 
damque  relinquerent,  adulterio  Paridis  fuisse  commotos.  III, 
15. 

6  Bonnet,  634. 

7  Bayard,  225. 

8  Goelzer  (2),  22. 

9  Gabarrou,  134. 

10  Lease,  12. 


46 


in  templo  in  lecto  in  convivio  inopinate  atque  impie  fuisse  truci- 
datmn!  Ill,  22. 

Cf.  also  I,  3;  V,  5;  VIII,  5;  X,  32;  XI,  6;  XII,  14,  22,  28;  XIII, 
3;  XV,  11,  12,  17,  27;  XVI,  15;  XVII,  5,  17;  XX,  19; 

XXI,  8;  passim. 

(y)  Plnperfect  nsed  for  the  perfect  or  imperfect. 

A  marked  feature  of  the  influence  of  colloquial  Latin  on  the 
literature  of  the  Christian  period  is  the  use  of  the  pluperfect  tense 
for  either  the  perfect  or  imperfect,  and  this  is  evident  not  only  in 
the  active  but  especially  in  the  passive.  Schmalz 11  says  that 
Caesar  and  Cicero  avoided  this  usage,  although  we  find  it  in  rare 
instances  even  there,  e.  g.,  qui  turn  oppido  praefuerat,  G.  B.  2,  6,  4. 

Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  is  very  free  with  this  use  of  the  plu¬ 
perfect,  thus: 

Verum  ista  opportunius  alio  loco  diligenter  copioseque  tractanda 
sunt,  nunc,  quod  institueram  de  ingratis  hominibus  dicere, 
I,  3. 

Pramiseram  etiam  me  demonstraturum,  IV,  2. 

Cf .  also  IV,  2,  29 ;  XVI,  10 ;  XXII,  8,  passim. 

non  iam  vitiosam,  sicut  pridie  fuerat  disputatum ,  II,  21. 

qui  pro  defuncto  Lucretio  suffectus  fuerat ,  III,  16. 

Cur  enim  similiter  eodemque  tempore  .  .  .  sicut  nati  fuerant ,  quia 
utique  simul  nasci  ambo  non  poterant?  V,  5. 

Cf.  also  II,  2,  19,  21;  III,  7,  9,  13,  14,  17,  18,  22,  25,  28,  30;  IV, 
20,  29;  V,  12,  23,  26;  VIII,  11;  X,  17,  21,  32;  XI,  4;  XIII, 
20,  24;  XIV,  11,  15,  27;  XV,  6,  8,  11,  15,  23;  XVI,  1,  35, 
43;  XVII,  2,  5,  8,  13,  21,  44;  XVIII,  1,  2;  XX,  18;  XXI,  27; 

XXII,  8,  24. 


In  the  perfect  passive  subjunctive,  Augustine  with  a  similar 
freedom,  substitutes  the  forms  fuerim  and  fuissem  for  sim  and 
essem,  thus: 


adflictionem  vero  eius,  quamcumque  iste  tempore  superbia  delici- 
aeque  eorum  perpessae  fuerint ,  II,  19. 
quae  forma  militi  visa  fuerit,  II,  24. 
antequam  eorum  sacrificia  prohibita  fuissent ,  IV,  2. 

Cf.  also  I,  36;  IV,  2;  VI,  2;  VII,  1;  X,  17,  21,  25;  XI,  5;  XII, 
10;  XIII,  2,  12,  23;  XIV,  8;  XV,  7,  16,  20,  21;  XVI,  11; 


11  Schmalz,  487. 


47 


XVII,  4;  XVIII,  2;  XIX,  6,  9,  11;  XX,  7,  14,  25,  26;  XXI, 
16,  17,  18,  24,  25,  27. 


2.  Tense  in  dependent  clauses. 

The  time  of  dependent  subordinate  clauses  which  take  the  sub¬ 
junctive  is  usually  relative,  that  is,  it  is  either  contemporaneous, 
antecedent  or  subsequent  to  the  tense  of  the  independent  clause. 
This  is  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  law  of  “  sequence  of 
tenses.” 

In  classical  Latin,  the  present  or  perfect  subjunctive,  or  a  future 
participle  with  sim,  is  used  in  sentences  subordinate  to  a  present, 
future,  definite  perfect  and  future  perfect  indicative.  The  im¬ 
perfect,  pluperfect  or  future  participle  with  essem  is  used  in  sen¬ 
tences  subordinate  to  an  imperfect,  historical  perfect  and  pluperfect 
indicative. 

In  the  writings  of  all  periods  of  the  language  we  find  variations 
from  the  above  usage.  However,  such  variations  are  very  rare  in 
classical  Latin. 

Augustine,  with  the  writers  of  the  Christian  period,  has  numer¬ 
ous  deviations  from  this  rule,  more  perhaps  than  in  any  other 
phase  of  syntax. 

The  following  are  irregularities  found  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 


quos  dicunt,  ut  hoc  miserae  Troiae  facer ent  eamque  Graecis  .  .  . 

Ill,  15. 

Et  lie  ipsi  quoque  sine  coniugibus  remanerent ,  additur  Neptuno 
Salacia,  Plutoni  Proserpina,  IV,  10. 
in  Italiae  compitis  quaedam  dicit  sacra  Liberi  celebrata  cum  tanta 
licentia  turpitudinis,  ut  in  eius  honorem  pudenda  virilia 
colerentur ,  VII,  21. 

Qui  profecto  incontaminabilis  Heus  absit  ut  contaminationem 
timer  et  .  .  .  IX,  17. 

Cf.  also  I,  2,  10,  20,  28;  II,  3,  5,  6,  16;  III,  6,  7,  9,  12,  13,  14,  24, 
29;  IV,  23;  V,  12,  14,  16,  18;  VI,  3;  VIII,  10,  11;  IX,  15; 
X,  10,  23,  30;  XI,  15;  XIII,  9;  XIV,  2,  5,  10;  XV,  13,  17; 
XVI,  1,  4,  15;  XVII,  7;  XVIII,  9,  27;  XIX,  15;  XXII,  8; 
passim. 


CHAPTER  YI— MOODS. 


The  attitude  of  mind  toward  a  fact,  command,  or  wish  is  mani¬ 
fested  in  language  by  means  of  mood.  This  is  the  function 
assigned  to  mood  by  the  Greeks.  The  Romans  had  the  Greek  con¬ 
ception  of  mood,  with  this  difference,  that  the  Latin  subjunctive 
performs  the  two  functions  which  the  Greeks  assigned  to  the 
optative  and  subjunctive  respectively. 

From  the  viewpoint  of  syntax,  the  infinitive  functions  as  a  verbal 
noun.  In  the  development  of  the  language,  however,  it  received 
tense  forms  and  certain  modal  characteristics,  and  is  often  used  as 
a  substitute  for  finite  moods. 

In  the  periods  of  the  Latin  language  subsequent  to  and  even 
preceding  the  Classical  Age,  variations  in  mood  usage  existed.  It 
is  towards  the  end  of  the  Augustan  period  that  the  confusion  in 
moods  began  to  be  very  evident,  due  chiefly  to  a  change  in  the 
attitude  of  mind  of  the  people. 

Among  the  variations  of  the  use  of  mood  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
period  may  be  mentioned  the  use  of  the  indicative  for  the  sub¬ 
junctive  in  indirect  questions.1  Classical  usage  adheres  strictly  to 
the  subjunctive,  although  in  the  colloquial  Latin  of  that  time  the 
indicative  was  used.  Once  even  in  Cicero’s  letters  we  find  the 
indicative  in  an  indirect  question  instead  of  the  subjunctive,  thus : 
Yides,  propinquitas  quid  liabet,  Att.  13,  18;  also  in  Plautus,  Most. 
829,  Specta,  quam  acte  dormiunt ;  and  in  Propertius;  2,  16,  29, 
Aspice,  quid  Eriphyla  invenit. 

In  the  Ecclesiastical  period  the  indicative  in  indirect  questions 
appears  frequently,  but  even  here  it  by  no  means  displaces  entirely 
the  classical  use  of  the  subjunctive. 

Other  deviations  from  classical  Latin,  as  found  in  Christian 
writers,  are:  the  use  of  the  indicative  for  the  subjunctive  in 
clauses  of  characteristic,  and  in  subordinate  clauses  in  indirect 
statements;  the  indicative  or  subjunctive  with  quod ,  quia  and 
quoniam  after  verba  sentiendi  et  declarandi  instead  of  the  accusa¬ 
tive  and  infinitive;  infinitives  after  verbs  where  in  classical  Latin 
we  find  a  substantive  clause  introduced  by  ut  with  the  subjunctive, 
etc. 

1  Cf.  Kaulen,  189;  Goelzer  (1),  355;  Bonnet,  675. 

48 


49 


We  shall  here  take  the  moods  in  order  and  present  the  variations 
from  classical  usage  as  found  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

i.  Imperative. 

The  imperative  presents  no  irregularity  of  any  kind. 

ii.  Indicative. 

1.  In  indirect  questions. 

In  six  passages  in  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  the  indicative  for 
the  subjunctive  in  indirect  questions,  thus: 

Utrum  volunt ,  eligant,  III,  20. 
quaerendum  est  quando  erit  moriens,  XIII,  11. 

Sed  utrum  primus  homo  vel  primi  homines  (duorum  erat  quippe 
coniugium)  habebant  istos  affectus  in  cor  pore  animali  ante 
peccatum,  .  .  .  non  inmerito  quaeritur,  XIY,  10. 
quis  non  videat  quantum  rerum  eapere  ilia  potuit  magnitudo? 
XV,  27. 

Sed  utrum  videbunt  et  per  oculos  corporis  cum  eos  apertos  habe- 
bunt,  inde  quaestio  est,  XXII,  29. 

2.  In  relative  clauses  of  characteristic. 

Relative  clauses  of  characteristic  or  description  which  express 
cause  and  concession  as  well  as  those  with  indefinite  antecedents, 
take  the  subjunctive  in  classical  Latin.  It  is  not  unusual  to  find 
the  indicative  in  Christian  writers.  Although  relative  clauses  of 
characteristic  with  the  subjunctive  greatly  predominate  in  the 
D.  C.  D.,  yet  the  indicative  exists  in  instances  where  we  would 
expect  the  subjunctive.  Approximately  in  eight  hundred  passages, 
clauses  of  characteristic  occur,  only  about  twenty  of  which  take 
the  indicative,  thus : 

neque  hoc  tarn  ipsis  quam  illis  utile  est,  quibus  regnant ,  IV,  3. 
et  si  qui  alii  sunt,  qui  quoquo  modo  corporis  bonum  summum 
bonum  esse  hominis  opinati  sunt ,  XIV,  2. 

Cf.  also  I,  9 ;  II,  1,  20 ;  IV,  9,  23 ;  V,  26 ;  VII,  3,  5,  23 ;  VIII,  24; 
XI,  5;  XIV,  13,  20;  XXI,  24;  XXII,  5,  23. 

An  interesting  example  is  the  following  where  the  classical  and 
non-classical  constructions  appear  in  the  same  passage  without 
any  evident  difference  in  meaning. 

4C 


50 


Yerum  tamen  vix  quisquam  reperitur  deorum  non  selectorum,  qui 
aliquo  crimine  faman  traxit  infamem;  vix  antem  selectorum 
quispiam,  qui  non  in  se  notam  contumeliae  insignis  acceperit , 
YII,  4. 

3.  The  indicative  instead  of  the  subjunctive  in  subordinate  clauses 

in  indirect  statements. 

In  classical  Latin  the  indicative  is  used  in  subordinate  clauses 
in  indirect  statements 3  if  the  clauses  are  explanatory  or  if  they 
contain  statements  which  are  true,  independent  of  the  quotation. 
Of  thirteen  passages  in  the  D.  C.  I),  in  which  Augustine  uses  the 
indicative  in  indirect  statements,  he  conforms  to  this  classical 
usage  in  all  except  one,  thus : 

Eandem  terram  Cererem,  eandem  etiam  Yestam  volunt,  cum  tamen 
saepius  Yestam  non  nisi  ignem  esse  perhibeant  pertinentem 
ad  focos,  sine  quibus  civitas  esse  non  potest ,  et  ideo  illi  virgines 
solere  servire,  IY,  10.4 * 

Cf.  I,  26;  II,  8;  IY,  7,  10,  26;  Y,  12;  YII,  5,  11;  VIII,  21;  IX, 
7;  X,  25;  XII,  8;  XIX,  24. 

4.  Quia  and  quod  with  the  indicative  for  the  accusative  and 

infinitive. 

After  verba  sentiendi  et  declamndi  the  accusative  and  infinitive 
construction  is  used  in  classical  Latin.  Quod 5  with  the  subjunc¬ 
tive  is  found  in  Petronius,  Pliny  the  Elder,  Tacitus,  Suetonius, 
Floras  etc.  Petronius,  however,  is  the  first  to  use  quod  with  the 
indicative  for  the  accusative  and  infinitive.  This  use  of  quod  was 
still  further  extended  and  became  very  general  in  the  Romance 
languages.  In  Christian  writers  we  find  quia,  quod  and  quoniam 
with  the  indicative  used  very  frequently.  Augustine6  gives  pre¬ 
ference  to  the  quod  construction.  One  instance  of  quia  and  a  great 
number  of  quod  and  the  indicative  occur,  thus : 

(a)  quia. 

Xec  mirandum  est,  quia  Domini  omnipotentis  angelus  dictus  est 
Christus  Iesus,  XVIII,  35. 

3  Riemann  et  Goelzer,  718;  Lane,  1729. 

4  According  to  Angus,  Sources  of  the  First  Ten  Books  of  St.  Augustine, 

Princeton  1906,  this  is  a  quotation  from  an  unknown  source. 

6  Schmalz,  540.  0  Dokkum. 


51 


(/?)  Quod. 

Miror  Apollinem  nominatum  divinatorem  in  tanto  opificio  laborasse 
nescientem  quod  Laomedon  fuerat  promissa  negaturus,  III,  2. 
Hoc  dico,  quod  ipsum  Komanum  imperium  iam  magnum  multis 
gentibus  subiugatis  ceterisque  terrible  acerbe  sensit,  IY,  5. 
nequaquam  tamen  dicere  et  scribere  dubitaret,  quod  hi,  qui  populis 
instituerunt  simulacra,  et  metum  dempserunt  et  errorem  addi- 
derunt,  IY,  9. 

Cf.  also  YII,  3,  11,  20,  28;  IX,  16,  21;  X,  8,  10,  27;  XI,  2,  8,  13, 
23,  26,  31;  XII,  1,  2,  7,  10,  19;  XIII,  16;  XIY,  9,  14,  23; 
XY,  5,  23,  27;  XYI,  3,  26,  29,  32;  XX,  30. 

In  the  two  following  passages,  we  note  that  Augustine,  while 
using  quod  with  the  indicative  is  mindful  of  the  classical  con¬ 
struction,  since  the  accusative  and  infinitive  construction  imme¬ 
diately  follows: 

Laudat  idem  Sallustius  temporibus  suis  magnos  et  praeclaros  viros, 
Marcum  Catonem  et  Gaium  Caesarem,  dicens  quod  diu  ilia 
res  publica  non  habuit  quemqnam  virtute  magnum,  sed  sua 
memoria  fuisse  illos  duos  ingente  virtute,  diversis  moribus, 

Y,  12. 

Sed,  o  homo  acutissime,  num  in  istis  doctrinae  mysteriis  illam 
prudentiam  perdidiste,  qua  tibi  sobrie  visum  est,  quod  hi,  qui 
primi  populis  simulacra  constituerunt,  et  metum  dempserunt 
civibus  suis  et  errorem  uddiderunt,  castiusque  deos  sine  simu- 
lacris  veteres  observasse  Romanos  f  YII,  5. 

5.  Forsitan,  fortasse  and  fortassis. 

In  classical  Latin  forsitan  7  is  regularly  used  with  the  subjunc¬ 
tive  (potential).  The  indicative  with  forsitan  becomes  frequent 
in  Minucius  Felix,  Jerome,  Sulpicius  Severus  and  other  Christian 
writers.  In  the  D.  C.  D.,  forsitan  occurs  in  eleven  passages,  six  of 
which  have  the  indicative  with  forsitan ,  thus : 

Utrisque  igitur  ...  si  nec  hostium  violentia  contrectata  esset, 
forsitan  poterant,  ...  I,  28. 

(quod  incredibile  forsitan  erit,  .  .  .  I,  32. 

adstabat  forsitan  et  maritus,  YII,  24. 

si  eos  facillimos  habent,  sic  forsitan  habent,  XXI,  4. 


7  Schmalz,  481. 


52 


An  erit  forsitan  quisquam,  XXI,  24. 

non  redarguo,  qnia  forsitan  verum  est,  XXI,  26. 

A  confusion  appears  in  the  use  of  forsitan  and  fortasse  or  for- 
tassis.  Fortasse  or  fortassis  always  take  the  indicative  in  pre- 
classical  Latin.  Cicero  uses  them  with  the  subjunctive,  and  from 
his  time  on  they  appear  both  with  the  indicative  and  subjunctive. 
In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  them  used  in  fourteen  passages  with  the 
indicative,  and  in  nine  passages  with  the  potential  subjunctive. 

Cf.  for  the  indicative,  III,  8,  15;  IV,  6,  25;  VIII,  27;  X,  29; 
XIV,  9;  XV,  12;  XVI,  20;  XVII,  20;  XX,  26;  XXI,  4,  8, 
27;  for  the  subjunctive,  I,  9,  30;  II,  17;  III,  9;  XII,  20 
(twice)  ;  XIII,  18;  XIV,  8;  XXII,  29. 

6.  In  causal  relatives. 

When  a  causal  relative  8  is  introduced  by  quippe,  as  quippe  qui, 
the  subjunctive  is  used  in  classical  Latin.  Cicero  always  uses  the 
subjunctive  with  quippe  qui  with  one  exception.  Plautus  and 
Terence  preferred  the  indicative.  Tacitus  and  Nepos  always  used 
the  subjunctive  and  Livy  used  either  mood.  From  Apuleius  9  on, 
the  indicative  becomes  more  common.  Many  instances  of  quippe 
qui  and  the  indicative  are  found  in  Jerome.10  This  causal  relative 
occurs  in  the  D.  C.  D.  only  four  times,  and  always  with  the  indica¬ 
tive,  thus : 

ad  rem  quippe  quae  agitur  multum  pertinet,  III,  20. 

Ea  quippe  quae  non  in  specie,  sed  in  eius  privatione  sciuntur,  si 
dici  aut  intellegi  potest,  quodam  modo  nesciendo  sciuntur ,  ut 
sciendo  nesciantur,  XII,  7. 

Patitur  quippe  qui  afficitur,  XII,  18. 

Alia  sunt  quippe  quae  de  quibusque  rebus  sine  concubitu  ita 
nascuntur,  XV,  27. 


hi.  Subjunctive. 

1.  In  prohibitions. 

In  prohibitions  the  present  and  usually  the  perfect  subjunctive 
with  ne  is  confined  to  poetry  in  the  Classical  period.  In  the  prose 

8  Schmalz,  534. 

°Draeger,  491. 

10  Goelzer  ( 1 ) ,  356. 


53 


of  this  period  prohibitions  in  the  second  person  are  usually  ex¬ 
pressed  by  noli  or  nolite  with  the  infinitive.  In  the  D.  C.  D., 
Augustine  conforms  to  classical  usage  with  one  exception,  where  he 
expresses  a  strong  prohibition  by  non  with  a  present  subjunctive; 
thus : 

Non  audias  (=  nolite  audire)  degeneres  tuos  Christo  Christiansive 
detrahentes  et  accusantes  velut  tempora  mala,  II,  29. 

For  the  regular  form  of  a  prohibition,  cf.  II,  9,  29 ;  passim. 

2.  With  cibsit. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  makes  a  very  special  and  frequent  use 
of  the  third  person  singular  of  the  present  subjunctive  of  ah  sum, 
i.  e.  absit.  He  seems  to  assign  to  it  a  two-fold  function.  (1)  Absit 
appears  with  the  force  of  an  optative  subjunctive  with  utinarn, 
expressing,  however,  much  more  feeling  on  the  writer’s  part  than 
the  ordinary  expression  of  a  wish.  (2)  Absit  appears  as  an 
equivalent  of  tantum  abest  ...  ut  .  .  .  ut  of  classical  prose,  the 
subjunctive  differing  in  nowise  from  the  indicative  of  tantum  abest. 
Frequently  however,  Augustine  sees  fit  to  use  but  one  ut  clause 
after  absit.  The  following  passages  illustrate  the  different  uses  of 
absit  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

(a)  As  an  intensive  optative  subjunctive : 

Ceterum  absit  a  mente  Christiana,  I,  25. 

Unde,  quia  sunt  ambae  similis  turpitudinis  absurditatis,  indigni- 
tatis  falsitatis,  absit  a  veris  religiosis;  ut  sive  ab  hac  sive  ab 
ilia  vita  speretur  aeterna,  VI,  9. 

Cf.  also  IY,  10;  YI,  6;  XI,  9;  XII,  9;  XY,  7;  XX,  22;  XXI,  15. 
(l 3 )  As  the  equivalent  of  tantum  abest: 

Absit,  inquam,  ut  ante  omne  peccatum  iam  ibi  fuerit  tale  peccatum, 
ut  hoc  de  ligno  admitterent,  XIY,  10. 
sed  tamen  absit,  ut  quis  ita  desipiat,  ut  existimet  in  numero 
humanorum  digitorum  errasse  Creatorem,  XYI,  8. 

Absit  ergo  ut  Salomonis  tempora  in  hac  promissione  praedicta  esse 
credantur,  XYII,  13. 

Cf.  also  II,  5;  III,  15;  IY,  23;  Y,  26;  YI,  9;  YIII,  7,  15,  27; 
IX,  17,  23;  XII,  14,  19;  XIII,  23;  XIY,  10,  21,  26;  XY,  8; 
XYI,  20,  34;  XVIII,  41;  XIX,  4;  XXI,  14,  26;  XXII,  20, 
25,  29. 


54 


Two  instances  occur  where  Augustine  uses  an  infinitive  with 
absit  for  an  ut  substantive  clause  with  tanturn  abest,  thus : 

Unde  absit  a  nobis  eius  negare  praescientiam,  V,  10. 

Absit  hoc  credere ,  XVI,  3. 

3.  Concessive  clauses  with  quamquam. 

(Concessive  clauses  with  quamquam  generally  take  the  indicative 
in  classical  Latin.  Cicero  has  several  passages  with  quamquam 
and  the  subjunctive  but  in  each  case  the  subjunctive  is  due  to 
attraction/1  mood  assimiliation,  or  to  some  other  evident  reason. 
We  see  quamquam  with  the  subjunctive  in  the  Augustan  poets, 
always  in  Juvenal,  rarely  in  Livy,  usually  in  Pliny  and  Tacitus. 
In  Christian  writers12  the  subjunctive  seems  more  prevalent  than 
the  indicative. 

We  can  account  for  the  prevalence  of  the  subjunctive  with  quam¬ 
quam  by  its  analogy  to  quamvis,  which  always  takes  the  subjunctive. 
Quamvis ,  in  turn,  by  its  analogy  to  quamquam ,  tends  to  be  used 
with  the  indicative. 

The  indicative  with  quamquam  occurs  ten  times,  and  the  sub¬ 
junctive  twenty-four  times  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

(a)  quamquam  with  the  subjunctive. 

Quamquam  enim  non  esset  de  alia  tribu  Samuel,  XVII,  5. 
Quamquam  et  sine  additamento  praepositionis  quaerere  intellegatur 

.  .  .  XVII,  6. 

Christus  autem  quamquam  sit  caelestis  et  aeternae  conditor  civi- 
tatis,  XXII,  6. 

Cf.  also  I,  28;  III,  17,  20;  IV,  3;  V,  3;  VIII,  13;  X,  9,  31;  XI, 
27,  34;  XII,  1;  XIV,  22,  25;  XVII,  11;  XVIII,  8,  21;  XIX, 
7;  XXI,  14. 

(/?)  quamquam  'with  the  indicative. 

For  quamquam  and  the  indicative  cf.  I,  19,  22;  III,  2;  IV,  7, 
28 ;  V,  6 ;  VII,  31 ;  X,  20 ;  XX,  29 ;  passim. 

4.  Concessive  clauses  with  quamvis. 

The  indicative  with  quamvis  occurs  twenty  times  in  the  D.  C.  D., 
but  the  subjunctive,  regular  in  classical  Latin,  appears  one  hun¬ 
dred  twenty-four  times,  thus : 

u  Schmalz,  554. 

12  Kaulen,  298;  Bonnet,  687;  Goelzer  (2),  336;  Bayard,  226. 


(a)  quamvis  with  the  indicative. 

Quid  si  enim  .  .  .  quamvis  iuveni  violenter  inruenti  etiam  sua 
libidine  inlecta  consensit  .  .  .  I,  19. 
sine  qua  omne  quamvis  laudabile  ingenium  superbia  vanescit  et 
decidit,  II,  5. 

Quamvis  non  solum  qui  sunt  apertissime  separati  .  .  .  non  absurde 
possunt  videri  .  .  .  XVI,  2. 

Cf.  also  II,  14,  22;  VII,  16;  VIII,  24;  XVIII,  24;  XIX,  12; 
passim. 

(yd)  quamvis  with  the  subjunctive. 

For  quamvis  and  the  subjunctive  cf.  I,  8,  12,  14;  II,  5,  14,  22; 
III,  22;  IV,  28;  V,  9,  12,  19,  21;  VI,  8;  VII,  2,  15;  XIX, 
1,  6,  7,  8,  12,  19;  passim. 

5.  Quia,  quod  and  quoniam  with  the  subjunctive  instead  of  the 

accusative  and  infinitive . 

We  have  stated  above13  that  quia,  quod  and  quoniam  with  the 
indicative  are  used  after  verba  sentiendi  et  declarandi  for  the  accu¬ 
sative  and  infinitive.  A  still  more  frequent  use  of  these  same 
particles  with  the  subjunctive  in  such  circumstances  appears  in  the 
D.  C.  D.  Augustine  manifests  a  special  fondness,  as  with  the  in¬ 
dicative,  for  quod  over  quia  and  quoniam.  Xo  instance  occurs  of 
quia  and  quoniam  with  the  subjunctive  for  the  accusative  and 
infinitive  but  quod  and  the  subjunctive  in  such  circumstances  ap¬ 
pears  very  often. 

(a)  quod. 

Ilia  quern  virum  iam  fide  media  retinebat  .  .  .  puto  quod  non 
culpabiliter  fleverit ,  III,  14. 

Manifestum  est  autem,  quod  igni  tribuat  caeli  locum,  VIII,  11. 
nimirum  hoc  intellegi  voluit,  quod  Spiritus  sanctus  non  tantum 
sit  Patris,  verum  etiam  ipsius  ITnigeniti  Spiritus,  XIII,  24. 
Cf.  also  II,  22,  24;  III,  10;  IV,  10,  17,  22,  29,  37;  V,  20,  23,  26; 
VI,  4,  7,  8;  VII,  3,  4,  17;  VIII,  9,  11,  26;  IX,  4;  X,  6,  11, 
21;  XI,  4,  6,  10,  13,  14,  li,  24;  XII,  6,  9,  10,  12,  16,  17,  19, 
23;  XV,  1,  11,  17,  18,  23;  XVI,  11,  13,  16,  21,  24,  32,  36,  40; 
XVII,  5,  8,  12;  XVIII,  9,  13,  15,  41;  XIX,  1,  23;  XX,  3,  5, 
9,  24;  XXI,  9,  24,  27;  passim. 


13  Cf .  section  on  indicative  mood. 


56 


iv.  Infinitive. 

1.  Infinitive  as  subject. 

Properly  speaking  the  infinitive  is  a  verbal  nonn.  It  is  used 
very  frequently  in  place  of  a  substantive,  rarely  however,  modified 
by  an  adjective  or  its  equivalent.  When  using  the  infinitive  as  a 
substantive  Augustine  usually  conforms  to  classical  requirements. 
In  three  instances,  however,  we  find  him  modifying  the  substantive 
infinitive  with  a  pronominal  adjective.  He  is  not  alone  in  this, 
as  even  Cicero  has  a  few  instances  of  the  same,  thus : 

hoc  non  dolere  solum  voluptatis  nomine  appellaret,  Fin.  II,  18; 

cum  vivere  ipsum  turbe  sit  nobis,  Att.  XIII,  28,  c. 

In  Minucius  Felix  we  read,  nec  hoc  obsequi  fuit  aut  ordinis  aut 
honoris,  Octavius,  4,  6 ;  in  Avitus,  Suum  nasci  illi  malum  erat, 
qui  tradidit  nobis  bonum,  p.  26,  7. 

The  following  three  are  from  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Xam  et  sumus  et  nos  esse  novimus  et  id  esse  ac  nosse  diligimus, 
XI,  26. 

Ibi  esse  nostrum  non  habebit  mortem,  ibi  nosse  nostrum  non  habebit 
errorem,  ibi  amare  nostrum  non  habebit  offensionem,  XI,  29. 
et  cum  ibi  sunt,  ubi  esse  per  naturae  ordinem  debent,  quantum 
acceperunt,  suum  esse  custodiunt,  XII,  5. 

2.  Purpose  expressed  by  the  infinitive. 

In  classical  Latin,  the  infinitive  may  be  used  to  express  purpose 
only  in  poetry.  Ecclesiastical  writers 14  make  free  use  of  the  in¬ 
finitive  to  express  purpose  especially  after  verbs  of  motion  where 
we  would  expect  a  supine. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  of  Augustine,  ten  instances  occur  where  the  in¬ 
finitive  is  used  to  express  purpose,  thus : 

Quid  ergo  dicit  iste,  qui  venit  adorare  sacerdoti  Dei  et  sacerdote 
Deo?  XVII,  5. 

Quis  enim  non  videat  non  potuisse  utrumque  tunc  dici  a  propheta, 

14Kaulen,  280;  Bayard,  241;  Goelzer  (1),  370;  Goelzer  (2),  230;  Bon¬ 
net,  646. 


57 


qui  missus  fuerat  terrere  comminatione  inminentis  exitii 
civitatem?  XVIII,  44. 

non  contrivit,  non  extinxit,  quia  pepercit  eis,  qui  nondum  venerat 
eos  iudicare,  sed  iudicari  ab  eis,  XX,  30. 

Cf.  also  VII,  30;  XIV,  9,  12;  XVII,  6;  XVIII,  44;  XXI,  7,  27. 

3.  Infinitive  with  adjectives. 

In  many  instances  Augustine  uses  dignus,  indignus,  idoneus 
with  a  relative  clause  and  the  subjunctive  as  in  classical  Latin  but 
he  is  just  as  liable  to  use  an  infinitive  or  ut  with  the  subjunctive. 
The  infinitive  after  dignus  appears  only  once  in  Cicero,  but  it 
becomes  frequent  after  his  time.  Thus,  Vergil,  Et  puer  ipse  fecit 
cantari  dignus  et  ista,  Eel.  5,  54;  Quintilian,  legi  dignus,  10,  1,  96; 
Arnobius,  dignus  .  .  .  est  tantorum  ob  numerum  gratiam  Deus 
did,  L,  38. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  the  following : 

(a)  Dignus. 

ut  nec  temporalia  pro  eis  mala  perpeti  se  iudicent  dignas,  I,  9. 
quod  vere  digni  erant  pati,  XXI,  18. 

0  hominum  corda  doctorum !  0  ingenia  litterata  digna  credere 

ista  de  Christo !  XVIII,  53. 

Cf.  XXI,  24. 

((d)  Indignus. 

An  indigna  est  praeferri  etiam  universae  naturae  hominum  pars 
aliqua  deorum?  VI,  4. 

Cf.  also  VIII,  18;  X,  30;  XI,  5. 

(y)  Idoneus. 

quod  videlicet  potentia  deorum  suorum  multos  potius  sit  idonea 
conservare  quam  singulos,  I,  15. 

nullus  deus  ex  ilia  turba  vel  quasi  plebeiorum  vel  quasi  procerum 
deorum  idoneus  est  regna  mortalia  mortalibus  dare,  VI,  1. 
nec  per  nos  ipsos  nosse  idonei  sumus,  XI,  3. 

Cf.  also  XII,  4;  XXII,  30. 

Other  adjectives  construed  with  the  supine  (u)  in  classical 
Latin  are  followed  by  the  infinitive  in  the  Imperial  epoch.  Of 
these  Augustine  uses  the  following  in  the  D.  C.  D. 


53 


Facile  est  enim  cuiquam  videri  respondisse,  qui  tacere  noluerit, 

v,  26. 

qui  nondum  mortui  sunt,  sed  inminente  morte  iam  extrema  et 
mortifera  adflictione  iactantur,  explicare  difficile  est,  XIII,  9. 
For  similar  examples,  cf.  II,  24;  III,  3;  IV,  23,  31;  VII,  5,  13; 
IX,  23;  X,  23,  25;  XIV,  1,  12,  13,  23,  24;  XVI,  1,  8;  XVIII, 
9,  53;  XXI,  6,  7,  27;  XXII,  29;  passim. 

4.  Infinitive  with  verbs. 

In  all  periods  of  the  Latin  language  the  infinitive  is  regularly 
used  after  verbs  of  “ willing”  and  the  like.  From  the  Imperial 
epoch  on  other  verbs  have  taken  on  a  like  usage  which  were  not 
known  to  take  an  infinitive  in  the  Classical  period.  This  usage 
extended  through  the  Christian  period.  Among  these  verbs  the 
following  are  to  be  found  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Abesse.  Two  instances  of  absit  with  an  infinitive  15  occur. 

Facere.  The  infinitive  with  facere  in  the  sense  of  “  to  cause  to  ” 
is  chiefly  colloquial  and  is  frequent  in  Christian  writers.16 
In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  note  the  following : 
ut  in  sepulcro  suo  scribi  fecerit ,  II,  20. 
sed  angelum  suum  et  faciat  vincere  quern  voluerit,  IV,  17. 

Cf.  also  IV,  27;  VII,  3,  24,  35;  VIII,  10;  XI,  8;  XII,  6;  XIV, 
3,  25;  XVI,  5,  32;  XVIII,  26;  XIX,  25;  XXI,  5,  7;  XXII, 
8,  24,  30;  passim. 

Compellere  is  not  used  in  classical  Latin  with  an  infinitive.  This 
construction  is  met  with  for  the  first  time  in  Ovid.  It  was 
in  general  use  from  that  time  on,  especially  among  the  Chris¬ 
tian  writers.  It  occurs  in  the  D.  C.  D.  thus : 

Deinde  Titum  Tatium  regem  Sabinorum  socium  regni  Romulus 
ferre  compulsus  est,  III,  13. 

Cf.  also  II,  25;  III,  17;  IV,  26;  VII,  13,  35;  VIII,  24;  XII,  21; 
passim. 

Quaerere.  The  infinitive  with  quaerere  is  poetic  in  the  Classical 
period,  but  is  taken  over  into  the  prose  of  the  Empire,  and 
subsequent  times.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  examples 
occur : 

15  Cf.  section  on  subjunctive  mood. 

18  Kaulen,  278;  Goelzer  (1),  373;  Goelzer  (2),  248;  Bayard,  238;  Ga- 
barrou,  135. 


59 


Quorum  sacra  Yarro  dum  quasi  ad  naturales  rationes  referre 
canatur,  quaerens  honestare  res  turpes,  VII,  34. 

Cf.  also  XII,  7;  XIV,  14;  passim. 

Dare.  In  classical  poetry  the  infinitive  is  used  as  a  substantive 
object  after  dare .  This  usage  is  taken  over  extensively  by 
Christian  writers  of  prose.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  the  fol¬ 
lowing  : 

immo  vero  sub  specie  mirantis  et  causas  rerum  talium  requirentis 
dat  intellegi,  illos  haec  agere  spiritus,  X,  11. 

Cf .  also  XY,  7 ;  XXI,  7 ;  passim. 

Dub  it  are.  After  negative  expressions  of  doubt,  the  subjunctive 
with  quin  is  regularly  used  in  classical  Latin.  Beginning 
with  Xepos  and  continuing  through  Livy  and  later  writers, 
the  infinitive  with  the  accusative  is  used  instead.  Evidently 
dubito  began  to  be  conceived  as  verbum  sentiendi.  In  the 
D.  C.  D.  about  forty  passages  occur  with  dubitare,  meaning 
“to  doubt,”  taking  the  infinitive  and  accusative.  Dubitare 
meaning  “to  hesitate”  occurs  about  thirty  times  with  the 
infinitive,  as  in  classical  Latin.  The  following  are  passages 
from  the  L.  C.  D.  with  dubitare  “  to  doubt  ”  followed  by  the 
accusative  and  infinitive : 

Yerum  tamen  istum,  quern  appellat  semideum,  non  heroibus 
tantum,  sed  etiam  diis  ipsis  praeferendum  esse  non  dubito, 

II,  14. 

immo  ideo  non  dubitatur  ipsum  peccare ,  cum  peccat,  Y,  10. 

Quis  enim  dubitet  multo  esse  melius  habere  bonam  mentem  quam 
memoriam  quantumlibet  ingentem?  VII,  3. 

Cf.  also  VIII,  8,  19;  IX,  19;  XI,  33;  XII,  16,  17,  18;  XIII,  17; 
XY,  8,  9,  13,  16;  XYI,  8,  24,  29;  XVII,  3,  7,  20;  XVIII,  40, 
47;  XX,  19;  XXI,  9,  26;  XXII,  8,  26;  passim. 

The  subjunctive  with  ut  or  ne  after  verbs  expressing  fear, 
anxiety  or  danger  is  regularly  used  in  classical  Latin.  Cicero, 
however,  sometimes  uses  vereri  and  timer e  with  the  infinitive.17 
With  the  poets  of  the  Empire,  this  usage  became  more  frequent 
until  finally  in  the  Christian  period  it  was  taken  over  by  the 
writers 18  of  prose. 

17  Sehmalz,  423. 

18 Goelzer  (1),  368;  Goelzer  (2),  23S. 


60 


In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  the  three  verbs,  vereri,  timere,  and 
metuere  nsed  with  the  infinitive  thus : 

(a)  Vereri. 

qui  in  eum  crediderant  et  verebantur  palam  confiteri ,  ait  evan- 
gelista,  V,  14. 

Cf.  also  V,  19;  VI,  6. 

(/?)  Metuere. 

Si  igitur  irascuntur,  qui  non  singillatim  coluntur,  non  metuunt 
paucis  placatis  toto  caelo  irato  vivere?  IV,  11. 

Cf.  also  V,  20;  VI,  8;  VII,  18;  X,  32;  XIV,  9;  XVIII,  13. 

(y)  Timere. 

Certe  hie  minime  timuit  hominis  interitum  dicer e,  III,  15. 

Cf.  also  IV,  23;  V,  20,  24;  VII,  34. 

In  the  list  of  verbs  given  above,  we  have  enumerated  the  prin¬ 
cipal  ones  which  show  variations  from  classical  norms.  Beside 
those  quoted,  there  are  in  the  D.  C.  D.  a  number  of  causative  verbs 
which  take  an  objective  infinitive.  These  are  but  representatives 
of  a  type  of  verb  which  so  occurs  in  a  greater  or  lesser  degree  in 
almost  all  periods  of  the  language.  Among  them  are  the  following: 

amare,  ardere,  audere,  certare,  cogere,  desinare,  gaudere,  instituere, 
po  score,  recipere,  studere,  persuadere,  vetare,  valere,  niti,  etc. 
etc. 


CHAPTER  VII— SUBSTANTIVE  AND  ADJECTIVAL 

FORMS  OF  THE  VERB. 


i.  Participles. 

Participles  according  to  Schmalz  are  adjectival  forms  of  verbs. 
In  classical  Latin  they  unite  all  the  functions  of  adjectives  with 
those  of  the  verb.  As  adjectives  they  agree  with  their  substantives 
in  gender,  number  and  case.  The  nature  of  participles  being 
verbal,  they  may  like  verbs  have  tense  and  voice,  may  be  modified 
by  adverbs  and  often  take  an  object. 

A  varied  use  of  participles,  especially  as  substantives,  is  char¬ 
acteristic  of  Christian  Latin.  This  variation  was  caused  mainly 
by  the  translation  of  the  Bible  from  Creek,  since  Latin,  in  its  lack 
of  participial  forms  as  compared  with  Greek,  tended  to  use  the 
participles  existent  more  extensively  than  they  were  used  in  the 
Classical  period.  The  variations  from  classical  Latin  which  occur 
in  ecclesiastical  Latin  in  the  use  of  participles  are  the  following: 

1.  Present. 

(a)  Participles  as  substantives. 

Participles  in  ans  and  ens  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  Chris¬ 
tian  Latin  either  as  adjectives  or  substantives.  In  general,  classical 
Latin  admits  only  the  neuter  of  adjectives 1  and  participles  as 
substantives  in  the  nominative  and  accusative  plural.  From  Livy 
on,  a  considerable  freedom  in  the  use  of  participles  as  substan¬ 
tives  is  evident.  Christian  writers  extended  even  this  use  of  par¬ 
ticiples,  and  used  them  as  substantives  in  all  cases  and  both 
number. 

Thus  in  Cyprian  we  read:  Adorans  .  .  .  nec  illud  ignorat  quem- 
admodum  .  .  .  publicanus  oraverit,  etc.  26,  9,  23;  in  Arnobius, 
sequentium  se  millia  quinque,  I,  46;  in  Avitus,  sed  capiens 
manibus  pomum  letale  retractat,  III,  210;  in  Gregory,  signa 
multa  faciens  se  deum  esse  declarat,  h.  F.  1.  20  p.  43,  22 ;  in 
Jerome,  sed  mihi  crede  nemo  mentiens  plorat,  Ep.  117,  3. 

Augustine  is  no  exception  to  the  writers  cited ;  he  uses  participles 
in  ans  and  ens  as  substantives  in  all  the  ways  cited  above,  thus : 


1  See  chapter  II  on  adjectives. 


61 


62 


(a)  Nominative  singular. 

Ecce,  ubi  decolorans  Christum  Indaeos  praeposuit  Christianis, 
confttens  quod  Iudaei  suscipiant  Deum,  XIX,  23. 

Cf.  also  II,  18;  IV,  23;  IX,  3;  XI,  24;  XII,  9;  XIII,  21;  XIY, 
2,  4,  11,  26 ;  XY,  7,  9,  13 ;  XYI,  2,  5,  19,  25,  41 ;  XVII,  4,  16 ; 
XVIII,  9,  18;  passim. 


(/?)  Nominative  plural. 

et  in  caelo  habitantes  terrena  animalia  nesciremus,  XXII,  4. 

Cf.  also  I,  16,  26,  28;  IY,  21;  Y,  8;  VIII,  8,  26;  XIII,  11,  15; 
XIY,  2,  3,  9,  17,  20,  21,  28;  XY,  1,  4,  5,  11,  15,  20,  23,  27; 
XYI,  2,  11,  29,  40;  XVII,  4,  10,  16,  20;  XVIII,  52;  XXI, 
6;  passim. 

(y)  Genitive  singular. 

Et  in  hoc  quidem  libro,  cuius  nomen  est  apocalypsis,  obscure 
multa  dicuntur,  ut  mentem  legentis  exerceant,  XX,  17. 

Cf.  also  I,  16,  25;  II,  26;  Y,  6;  XIII,  6;  XIY,  8,  10,  24;  XY,  7; 
XYI,  6,  11,  23,  26,  30;  XVIII,  32;  XXII,  20;  passim. 


(S)  Genitive  plural. 

Sed  haeo  in  usum  cedunt  proficientium ,  iuxta  illud  apostoli,  XYI,  2. 
Cf .  also  I,  22 ;  II,  1 ;  III,  22 ;  IY,  23,  29 ;  Y,  19 ;  XIY,  10,  20 ; 
XY,  20,  23;  XYI,  1,  17;  XVII,  5,  7;  XVIII,  31;  XIX,  15; 
XXII,  8;  passim. 

(c)  Dative  singular. 

quia  veniens  transiturus  est;  venienti  quippe  ibitur  obviam,  non 
manenti,  XX,  20. 

Cf.  also  I,  15,  21;  IY,  18;  V,  12;  YI,  10;  XIY,  8,  11;  XY,  7,  11, 
23;  XYI,  35,  39;  XVIII,  38;  XXII,  8;  passim. 


(£)  Dative  plural. 

Similiterque  interrog antibus,  quando  eum  viderint  in  horum  in- 
digentia  constitutum,  XX,  5. 

Cf.  also  I,  9,  13,  22,  28;  II,  1,  2,  4;  IY,  34;  XI,  16;  XII,  17; 
XIY,  6;  XYI,  23;  XVII,  4;  XVIII,  2,  12,  43;  XIX,  15; 
XXI,  20;  passim. 

(77)  Accusative  singular. 

Sed  si  ita  dicatur,  non  exprimit  comminantem,  XYI,  6. 


63 


Cf.  also  II,  17;  III,  15;  XIY,  8,  9,  20;  XV,  6,  17,  18,  26,  27; 
XVI,  37;  XXI,  27;  XXII,  8;  passim. 

(6)  Accusative  plural. 

quibus  vult  esse  consultum,  ut  et  perterreat  superbientes  et  excitet 
neglegentes  et  exerceat  quarentes  et  alat  intellegentes,  XV,  25. 
Cf.  also  IV,  26,  33;  VI,  10;  XI,  29;  XV,  25;  XVI,  2;  XVII,  7; 
passim. 

(i)  Ablative  singular. 

sed  utrumque  simul  currit  isto  quasi  fluvio  atque  torrente  generis 
humani,  malum  quod  a  parente  trahitur,  et  bonum  a  creante 
tribuitur,  XXII,  24. 

Cf.  also  I,  7;  XIV,  10;  XV,  2;  XVI,  37;  XXII,  24;  passim. 

(k)  Ablative  plural. 

Ut  enim  esset  desideratus  expectantibus ,  prius  oportuit  eum  dilec- 
tum  esse  credentibus,  XVIII,  35. 

Cf.  also  I,  20;  II,  2;  IV,  21;  V,  9;  VIII,  19;  XIV,  9,  21;  XV, 
14;  XVI,  6,  37;  XVII,  8,  9;  passim. 

(b)  As  predicate  with  copula. 

About  fifteen  instances  of  the  present  participle  as  a  predicate 
with  a  copula  verb  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  This  usage  is  prevalent 
throughout  the  colloquial  language,  and  is  thus  found  also  in  the 
writers2  of  pre-classical  times.  The  following  are  from  the  D.  C. D. : 

non  simplex,  sed  propter  suam  invictissimam  voluntatem,  qua 
potens  est  (=  potest)  facer e,  ut  nec  orta  occidant  nec  conexa 
solvantur,  XIII,  16. 

tamquam  ad  eos  pertinens,  qui  sunt  spe  gaudentes  (=gaudent) 
in  tribulatione  patientes  (=  patiuntur)  XVIII,  32. 
quanto  magis  Deus  potens  est  (=  potest)  facere  .  .  .  XXI,  7. 

Cf.  also  II,  24,  25;  IV,  10;  XII,  6,  7;  XIII,  9,  11,  17;  XX,  20; 
XXII,  24. 

(c)  Present  participle  instead  of  postquam  clause. 

In  classical  Latin  the  present  participle  is  used  to  denote  action 
contemporaneous  with  the  action  of  the  main  verb.  In  ecclesi¬ 
astical  3  Latin  the  present  participle  is  used  frequently  for  a  post - 

2  Plautus,  Poen.  V,  2,  78;  Terence,  Andr.  508. 

3  Schraalz,  450;  Kaulen,  228;  Bonnet,  561;  Goelzer  (2),  289. 


64 


quam  clause  equivalent  to  the  Greek  aorist  participle,  which  denotes 
action  antecedent  to  that  of  the  main  verb.  In  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  we  read :  Ascendens  autem  frangensque  panem  et  gustans, 
satisque  allocutus  usque  ad  lucem  sic  profectus  est,  XX,  11. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  very  few  certain  examples  occur  but  the  fol¬ 
lowing  may  be  noted : 

Itaque  et  in  Aegypto  didicit  quaecumque  magna  illic  habebantur 
atque  docebantur,  et  inde  in  eas  Italiae  partes  veniens,  ubi 
Pythagoreorum  fama  celebrabatur,  quidquid  Italicae  philoso- 
phiae  tunc  florebat,  auditis  eminentioribus  in  ea  doctoribus 
facillime  comprehendit ,  YIII,  4. 

Cf.  also  X,  24;  XII,  9;  XIV,  7;  XY,  9;  XIX,  23. 

(d)  Present  participle  for  ablative  of  the  gerund. 

The  present  participle  so  frequently  employed  by  Augustine  and 
by  many  other  Christian  writers,  is  used  also  instead  of  the  abla¬ 
tive  of  the  gerund,  implying  in  a  general  sense  the  idea  of  means 
or  instrument,  thus: 

Bellum  erat,  ut  qui  feriebatur,  si  posset,  feriret;  pax  autem,  non 
ut  qui  evaserat  viveret,  sed  ut  moriens  (=  moriendo)  non 
repugnaret,  III,  28. 

Saepe  multumque  Plotinus  asserit  sensum  Platonis  explanans 
(=  explanando),  X,  2. 

facit  Deus  alia  in  contumeliam  vasa  irae,  alia  in  honorem  vasa 
misericordiae,  illis  reddens  (=  reddendo)  quod  debetur  in 
poena,  istis  donans  (=  donando)  quod  non  debetur  in  gratia, 
XY,  21. 

Cf.  also  II,  21;  IY,  16,  30;  XI,  33;  XIY,  3;  XIX,  23;  passim. 


2.  The  verbal  adjective  in  urus. 

(a)  As  attributive  adjective  and  substantive. 

In  Ciceronian  Latin,  we  find  only  futurus  and  venturus  used  as 
attributive  adjectives.4  From  the  Imperial  epoch,  the  future  par¬ 
ticiple  is  used  both  as  an  attributive  adjective  and  a  substantive. 
This  usage  passed  on  to  ecclesiastical  Latin  and  occurs  frequently 
in  writers  of  that  period.  Augustine,  in  common  with  the  writers 
of  his  age,  uses  the  future  participle  both  as  an  attributive  adjec¬ 
tive  and  a  substantive.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  occur : 


*  Sohmalz,  453. 


65 


(a)  As  adjective. 

Marcus  Mareellus,  qui  Syracusas  urbem  ornatissimam  cepit,  refer- 
tur  earn  prius  flevisse  ruituram  et  ante  eius  sanguinem  suas 
illi  lacrimas  effudisse,  I,  6. 

Sed  quaedam,  inquiunt,  sanctae  feminae  tempore  persecution^,  ut 
insectatores  suae  pudicitiae  devitarent,  in  rapturum  atque 
necaturum  se  fluvium  proiecerunt  ...  I,  26. 
et  terras  vitae  praesentis  ornaret  sua  felicitate  res  publica,  et  vitae 
aeternae  culmen  beatissime  regnatura  conscenderet,  II,  19. 

Cf.  also  II,  5,  24;  VIII,  23;  XIV,  23;  XX,  20;  passim. 

(/?)  As  substantive. 

Quocirca  nullo  modo  cogimur  aut  retenta  praescientia  Dei  tollere 
voluntatis  arbitrium  aut  retento  voluntatis  arbitrio  Deum 
(quod  nefas  est)  negare  praescium  futurorum,  V,  10. 

Si  ergo  pro  libertate  moriturorum  et  cupiditate  laudum,  V,  18. 

Cf.  also  I,  13;  II,  5,  24;  VII,  17;  XII,  21;  XIII,  19,  23;  passim. 

(b)  To  designate  purpose. 

The  future  participle  used  to  express  purpose  after  verbs  of 
motion  occurs  for  the  first  time  in  C.  Gracchus  as  quoted  by  Gellius. 
It  appears  once  in  Cicero  and  Sallust  and  some  times  in  the  poets. 
The  writers  of  the  Empire  used  it  more  extensively,  and  its  use 
increased  until  it  became  frequent  in  the  writers  of  the  Christian 
period.  The  following  are  instances  of  the  future  participle  ex¬ 
pressing  purpose  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Et  tamen  si  in  harenam  procederent  pugnaturi  inter  se  gladiatores, 
III,  14. 

Hie  ostendit,  quod  in  ea  carne  veniet  iudicaturus,  in  qua  venerat 

.  .  .  XX,  6. 

quando  Christus  venturus  est  vivos  iudicaturus  et  mortuos,  XX,  20. 

3.  Participle  in  tus. 

In  general  we  find  all  Christian  writers  conforming  to  Classical 
norms  when  using  the  perfect  passive  participle.  They  have  a 
tendency,  however,  to  make  an  extended  use  of  this  participle  with 
habere ,5  a  construction  rarely  found  in  the  Classical  period.  This 
construction  seems  to  be  analagous  to  thax  of  the  present  participle 

6  Schmalz,  462. 


with  esse ,  and  forms  as  it  were  a  periphrastic  conjugation.  In¬ 
stances  of  this  are  met  with  in  all  periods  of  the  language.  This 
usage  becomes  the  rule  in  the  Eomance  languages  in  the  formation 
of  compound  tenses.  Thus  in  Plautus  we  read:  immo  omnis  res 
relectas  habeo ,  Stich,  326;  in  Cicero,  Sic  habuisti  statutum  cum 
animo  ac  deliberatum,  Yerr.  II,  3,  95;  in  Arnobius,  aliquos 
numeros  cotidianis  habet  ex  usibus  notos,  II,  24;  in  Gregory, 
habemus  scriptum  in  cannonibus,  h.  F.  6,  15  p.  259,  5. 

In  Augustine’s  D.  C.  D.  the  following  examples  occur : 

quamdiu  sub  terra  essent,  praepositam  voluerunt  habere  deam 
Seiam,  IV,  8. 

Aut  certe  istam  mali  colant,  qui  nolunt  habere  merita ,  quibus  dea 
possit  Felicitas  invitari,  IV,  18. 
habebat  adiunctum,  VIII,  14. 
effectum  habere  non  potuit?  XVII,  6. 

Quas  moras  ille  suspectas  habens  multumque  formidans,  XXII,  8. 

n.  Gerund. 

The  gerund  is  a  neuter  verbal  substantive  used  only  in  the  oblique 
cases  of  the  singular.  It  corresponds  to  the  articular  infinitive  in 
Greek  and  to  the  participial  substantive  in  English.  Schmalz6  calls 
it  a  declined  infinitive.  It  expresses  the  incomplete  action  of  a 
verb.  In  classical  Latin,  whenever  an  object  depends  on  a  transi¬ 
tive  verb,  the  gerundive  construction  is  used.  In  all  Latin  litera¬ 
ture  exceptions  to  the  above  take  place,  and  gerunds  of  transitive 
verbs  are  sometimes  found  with  a  substantive  object,  and  regularly 
so  with  neuter  pronouns  and  neuter  plural  adjectives. 

1.  Genitive  of  the  gerund. 

In  classical  Latin  there  are  instances  where  the  genitive  of  the 
gerund  takes  an  dbject  but  this  is  limited  as  stated  already  to 
neuter  pronouns  and  neuter  plural  adjectives.  This  is  met  with 
often  in  Plautus,  very  seldom  in  Cicero  and  Caesar,  frequently  in 
Livy,  more  so  in  Christian  writers.  But  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  among  the  latter,  some,  notably  Cyprian,  are  remarkable  for 
their  adherence  to  classical  norms,  and  manifest  a  decided  pre¬ 
ference  for  the  gerundive  construction.  Augustine  in  his  D.  C.  D. 


6  Schmalz,  440. 


67 


has  numerous  instances  of  an  object  with  the  genitive  of  the  gerund, 
thus : 

se  non  subtraxerunt,  dando  eis  licentiam  male  tractandi  homines 
quos  liberet,  IV,  28. 

Xumquidnam  saltern  mediocriter  eos  dixii  errasse,  ut  hanc  artem 
invenirent  faciendi  deos ,  VIII,  24. 

Cf.  also  I,  18;  IV,  28;  X,  11;  VIII,  23,  24;  XIV,  15;  XVIII,  51; 
XIX,  6,  17. 

2.  Accusative  of  the  gerund. 

The  accusative  of  the  gerund  with  ad  is  frequent  in  all  periods 
of  the  literature.  A  direct  complement 7  accompanying  the  accusa¬ 
tive  of  the  gerund  with  ad  is  non-classical.  This  construction  is 
exceptional  in  pre-classical  Latin.  The  first  example  known  is  in 
Varro,  EH.  I,  23,  ad  discernendum  vocis  figuras.  It  is  rare  in  the 
Imperial  epoch,  but  becomes  frequent  in  ecclesiastical  Latin. 
Gregory 8  uses  it  frequently,  but  Cyprian  seldom.  It  occurs  in 
Avitus  only  once,  and  not  one  instance  appears  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

3.  Ablative  of  the  gerund. 

It  is  not  unusual  to  find  in  all  periods  of  the  Latin  language  the 
ablative  of  the  gerund  taking  an  object.  Christian  Latin  offers  a 
striking  contrast  to  classical  Latin  in  the  frequency  of  its  use. 
Classical  waiters 9  are  careful,  however,  not  to  use  a  direct  com¬ 
plement  after  an  ablative  gerund  governed  by  a  preposition,  al¬ 
though  some  instances  do  exist  in  classical  Latin,  even  in  Cicero, 
thus:  a  nimis  intuendo  fortunam  T,  D.  3,  20. 

In  Varro  we  read,  in  supponendo  ova,  r.  r.  3,  9,  12 ;  in  Livy,  in 
parcendo  uni,  IV,  44,  9. 

Only  two  instances  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

ut  mortalitate  transacta  et  ex  mortuis  faceret  inmortales,  quod 
in  se  resurgendo  monstravit,  IX,  15. 

Xam  eum  terrenorum  corporum,  sicut  onera  in  gestando  sentire 
consuevimus,  XIII,  18. 

Many  instances  of  the  ablative  of  the  gerund,  where  the  idea  of 

1  Schmalz,  441. 

8  Bonnet,  655. 

9  Schmalz,  442. 


68 


means  is  weak  or  non-existent  and  where  accordingly  we  would 
expect  a  present  participle,  are  met  with  in  the  D.  C.  D.  In  gen¬ 
eral,  it  may  he  stated,  that  this  is  a  usage  common  to  all  Christian 
writers.10  The  following  are  instances  from  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Sequitur  tamen  et  ea  velut  inquirendo  commemorat,  X,  11. 

Hoc  quippe  arguendo  interrogavit  dicens:  XV,  7. 
ad  patriarcham  Sem  recapitulando  revertetur  et  orditur  inde  gene¬ 
rations  usque  ad  Abraham,  XVI,  10. 

Cf.  also  I,  3,  9,  17,  34;  IV,  10;  VII,  24,  28;  VIII,  17;  X,  32; 
XII,  24;  XIV,  11,  13;  XV,  7,  23;  XVII,  2,  12,  17,  19; 
XVIII,  32,  34,  43 ;  XX,  29 ;  passim. 


hi.  Gerundive. 

The  gerundive,11  a  verbal  adjective,  expresses,  in  an  adjectival 
form,  the  incompleted  action  of  a  transitive  verb,  which  action  is 
exerted  on  a  substantival  object.  The  substantive  stands  in  the 
case  required  by  the  context  and  the  gerundive  agrees  with  it. 

Besides  using  the  gerundive  as  Classical  writers  did,  the  Chris¬ 
tian  writers  made  the  following  extended  uses:  1.  They  gave  it  a 
pure  participial  value,  often  assigning  it  the  place  of  a  subordinate 
clause,  as  in  Avitus :  Quocirca  volumen  per  vas  temperatius  in- 
gerendum  .  .  .  p.  73,  7. 

Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  uses  the  following  with  the  force  of  a 
subordinate  clause. 


Romanus  imperator  non  ex  civibus  dolendam ,  sed  ex  hostibus 
laudandam  victoriam  reportaverat,  I,  24. 

Illi  habeantur  dii  veri,  qui  hanc  adipiscendam  populis  procuraverint 
adeptamque  servaverint,  II,  20. 

An  aliter  stat  adorandus  in  locis  sacris,  quam  procedit  ridendus  in 
theatris?  VI,  7. 

Sed  absit  ut  vera  sint,  quae  nobis  minantur  veram  miseriam  num- 
quam  finiendam,  sed  interpositionibus  falsae  beatitudinis  saepe 
ac  sine  fine  rumpendam ,  XII,  21. 

Cf.  also  I,  3,  6,  24;  II,  8,  20,  27;  III,  10,  15;  V,  12;  VI,  2,  7,  8; 
VII,  27,  30,  35;  VIII,  1,  10,  19;  IX,  5;  X,  5,  11,  32;  XV, 
21;  passim. 


10  Schmalz,  447. 

11  Sohmalz,  466;  Lane,  399. 


69 


In  classical  Latin,  ad,  seldom  another  preposition,  was  fre¬ 
quently  joined  to  the  gerundive  construction  to  express  purpose; 
but  from  Livy  on  the  use  of  other  prepositions  combined  with  the 
gerundive  were  similarly  used.  Thus  in  the  Christian  writers  we 
meet  several  different  prepositions  with  the  gerundive  to  express 
purpose. 

Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  uses  pro,  propter  and  ob ,  besides  ad, 
thus : 

1.  Pro  with  the  gerundive. 

Omnes  enim  qui  sic  offerunt,  profecto  in  peccatis  sunt,  pro  quibus 
dimittendis  offerunt,  .  .  .  XX,  25. 
non  nobis  esse  peccata,  pro  quibus  dimittendis  debeamus  orare  et 
eis,  XXI,  27. 

sed  laudabiliter  toleratur  pro  tenendo  vel  adipiscendo  bono,  XIII,  8. 
Cf.  also  I,  6,  29;  II,  23;  III,  16 ;  Y,  18,  24;  VI,  1. 

2.  Propter  tuith  the  gerundive. 

Ad  haec  addunt  mulieres  adtributas  Libero  et  vinum  propter  libi- 
dinem  concitandam,  VI,  9. 

ut  nec  ipsi,  propter  quos  liberandos  mediator  effeetus  est,  IX,  15. 
Propter  hoc  et  de  venia  in  vicem  danda  multa  praecipiuntur  et 
magna  cura  propter  tenendam  pacem,  XV,  6. 
cuius  apostolus  meminit  propter  Dei  gratiam  commendandam, 
XVI,  23. 

3.  Ob  with  the  gerundive. 

Ceterum  illos,  quibus  conversatio  cum  diis  ad  hoc  esset,  ut  ob  in¬ 
veniendum  fugitivum  vel  praedium  comparandum,  X,  11. 

iv.  Supines. 

The  supines  are  verbal  substantives  which  are  used  in  place  of 
the  infinitive  in  certain  situations.  The  use12  of  the  supine  in 
um  was  quite  frequent  in  the  pre-classical  period  until  the  time 
of  Caesar  and  Cicero.  Then  the  gerund  with  causa  or  gratia  was 
preferred.  The  supine  construction  seems  never  to  have  gained 
favor  with  Latin  authors.  In  some,  it  is  totally  absent. 

Prudentius,  the  Christian  poet,  contemporary  of  Augustine,  used 


12  Schmalz,  465. 


70 


it  but  once  in  his  writings.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  the 
supine  in  urn  once  and  then  according  to  classical  usage,  thus : 

et  misit  ad  Apollinem  Delphicum  sciscitatum  quid  intellegendum 
esset  quidve  faciendum,  XVIII,  9. 

The  supine  in  u,  used  generally  after  the  adjectives  facilis ,  diffi- 
cilis,  iucundus,  and  the  like  is  also  not  a  favorite  construction  with 
authors.  Stock  expressions  such  as  the  “  mirabile  dictu  ”  and 
"  visu  ”  of  Virgil  are  retained.  Schmalz  says  that  in  general  the 
poets  of  the  Classical  and  Augustan  periods  and  writers  of  later 
ages  prefer  the  infinitive  with  these  adjectives.13 


13  For  the  use  of  this  construction  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  cf.  section  on  infinitives. 


CHAPTER  VIII— PREPOSITIONS. 


In  the  early  history  of  the  Latin  language,  many  prepositions 
were  not  distinguished  from  adverbs  in  form  or  meaning.  With 
the  development  of  the  language,  however,  prepositions  took  on 
the  definite  function  of  determining  more  clearly  the  direction  of 
an  action  expressed  by  a  verb. 

In  the  Classical  period  the  functions  of  the  prepositions  were 
clearly  defined  and  the  cases  which  they  governed  were  definitely 
established,  but  later  on  as  the  language  spread  through  the  pro¬ 
vinces,  there  arose  an  uncertainty  as  to  the  case  following  the 
prepositions  or  a  greater  variety  in  the  cases  so  used. 

To  this  extension  of  usage  in  ecclesiastical  Latin,  and  especially 
in  the  E.  C.  D.,  our  attention  is  directed  in  this  chapter.  The 
order  of  treatment  is  first,  prepositions  construed  with  the  accusa¬ 
tive,  then  those  with  the  ablative,  and  finally  those  construed  with 
both  accusative  and  ablative. 

i.  Prepositions  with  the  Accusative. 

1.  Ad. 

The  preposition  ad  assumes  even  in  classical  Latin  various  sig¬ 
nifications,  i.  e.,  it  has  a  local  and  temporal  meaning,  and  is  used 
with  persons  as  well  as  things.  Ad  means,  “to,”  “ toward/’ 
“  near,”  “  at.” 

The  variations  from  classical  norms  in  the  use  of  ad  as  found 
in  the  D.  C.  D.  are  the  following: 

(a)  Ad  with  names  of  towns  to  designate  limit  of  motion. 

Two  instances  of  ad  with  the  names  of  towns,  contrary  to  classi¬ 
cal  usage,  appear,  thus : 

Aesculapius  autem  ab  Epidauro  ambivit  ad  Romam,  III,  12. 
cum  Loth  filio  fratris  et  Sarra  coniuge  perrexit  in  terram  Chanaan 
et  pervenit  usque  ad  Sichem,  XVI,  18. 

From  the  classical  use  of  the  preposition  ad  to  designate  end  of 
motion,  Christian  writers  1  extended  it  to  ad  hoc  meaning  “  to  this 

1  Bonnet,  585;  Goelzer  (2),  149. 

71 


72 


point  ”  “  to  this  effect.”  This  recurs  occasionally  in  the  D.  C.  D. 
The  total  list  of  passages  in  which  ad  hoc  occurs  is  as  follows : 

Ad  hoc  enim  speculators,  I,  9;  also  IX,  15;  X,  11;  XI,  22,  24; 
XIY,  16;  XV,  27;  XVI,  11;  XVIII,  42,  46;  XIX,  14;  XX, 
1,  6,  7,  11,  21;  XXI,  22,  27;  XXII,  8,  12,  22. 

Beginning  with  Terence  2  who  was  the  first  to  use  usque  as  a 
preposition  with  the  accusative  of  names  of  places  to  determine 
motion  towards,  usque  alone  and  usque  ad  are  employed  by  classical 
writers  notably  Cicero,  thus:  usque  ad  Xumantiam;  Ep.,  Ill,  8,  4, 
usque  ad  Iconium.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  is  found  an  interesting  ex¬ 
tension  of  ad  reinforced  by  usque.  It  is  applied  to  persons  con¬ 
sidered  as  being  the  end  to  which  the  movement  signified  by  the 
verb  tends,  thus : 

Benedictus  igitur  duobus  filiis  Xoe  atque  uno  in  medio  eorum 
maledicto  deinceps  usque  ad  Abraham  de  iustorum  aliquorum, 
qui  pie  Deum  colerent,  XVI,  2. 

Denique  sicut  illic  enumeratis  supra  generationibus  usque  ad  Noe 
.  .  .  XVI,  12. 

Cf.  also  III,  9;  IV,  2;  XII,  13;  XVI,  24,  43;  XVIII,  1;  passim. 

(b)  Ad  with  adverbial  expressions. 

Classical  Latin  admits  adverbial  expressions  in  combination  with 
ad  as  ad  hunc  modum,  ad  similitudinem ,  ad  hunc  morem,  ad 
rationem  etc.  In  the  use  of  such  phrases  Augustine  conforms  to 
classical  usage,  but  we  find  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  other  expressions 
formed  by  analogy  with  these,  containing  the  accusative  neuter 
singular  of  an  adjective  and  ad,  which  are  peculiar  to  ecclesiastical 
Latin,  thus : 

Xon  mihi  autem  videtur  posse  ad  liquidum  colligi,  VIII,  3. 

donee  ad  perfectum  sanetur  .  .  .  XI,  28. 

quandoque  ad  initium  ilia  detractio  perducetur,  XII,  13. 

Cf.  also  I,  9;  XIII,  15;  XVI,  12;  XX,  30. 

(c)  ad  after  adjectives. 

Ad  and  the  accusative  depending  upon  an  adjective  is  an  ante- 
and  post-classical  usage,  although  not  entirely  unknown  in  Cicero¬ 
nian  Latin.  We  meet  it  in  the  Tusculan  Disputations,  Chrysippi 


2  Schmalz,  410. 


73 


ad  veritatem  firmissima  est,  ad  tempus  aegritudinis  difficilis,  III, 
79.  Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  uses  a  similar  construction  in  the 
following  passages: 

Ad  altare  ...  ad  Dei  honorem  cultumque  constructum,  VIII,  27. 
Deinde  testamentum  factum  ad  Abraham  terram  Chanaan  proprie 
manifestat  .  .  .  XVI,  24. 

Ad  aliquid  enim  emortuum  corpus  intelligere  debemus,  XVI,  28. 
universam  Asiam,  quae  totius  orbis  ad  numerum  partium  tertia 
dicitur,  ad  magnitudinem  vero  dimida  reperitur,  XVIII,  2. 

(d)  Ad  with  verbs. 

Aptare  in  classical  Latin  takes  the  dative.  Livy  however  uses  it 
with  ad  and  the  accusative,  thus : 

Aptanda  ad  pugnam  classe,  XXI,  49,  11. 

In  this  idiom  it  passed  through  various  authors  into  Christian 
Latin.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  meet  the  following : 

et  soli  nervi  in  citharis  atque  huius  modi  vasis  musicis  aptantur 
ad  cantum ,  XVI,  2. 

The  use  of  ad  with  the  accusative  after  verbs  compounded  with 
ad  such  as :  adaugere,  adcurare,  addubitare  etc.  is  characteristic 
of  both  colloquial  and  ecclesiastical  Latin.3 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  occur : 

Ad  haec  addunt  mulieres  .  .  .  VI,  9. 
sunt  qui  ad  vadimonia  sua  deos  advocent ,  VI,  10. 
quoniam  rex  Aegyptus  Ptolomaeus  eos  ad  hoc  opus  asciverat, 
XV,  13. 

quantum  ad  prosperitatem  adtinet  temporalem,  XVII,  2. 
cum  ad  eum  aspexerint  .  .  .  XX,  30. 

Cf.  also  V,  1;  VII,  6;  VIII,  2;  XVIII,  25. 

2.  Apud. 

(a)  Apud  with  accusative  for  a  locative  case. 

The  preposition  apud  was  used  more  extensively  in  colloquial 
language  than  in  the  diction  of  literature.  Irregularities  in  use 
accordingly  occur  even  in  Tacitus  and  Suetonius,  and  especially 


3  Sohmalz,  394. 


74 


in  Christian  Latin,  which  was  greatly  influenced  by  the  colloquial 
speech.  In  Tacitus  we  find  apud  with  the  accusative  for  a  locative 
case :  dum  vigebat  aetas,  militari  laude  apud  Germanias  floruit, 
Hist.  I,  49;  and  in  Suetonius,  apud  Iudaeam,  Yesp.  5;  in  Jerome, 
cui  apud  Antiochiam  debeam  communicare,  Ep.  15,  5 ;  in  Avitus, 
apud  Lugdunum,  66,  4. 

Augustine  uses  this  construction  in  eight  passages  in  the  D.C.D.. 
thus : 

si  apud  Romam  erant,  .  .  .  fortasse  apud  Ilium  erant,  III,  8. 
nobis  apud  Karthaginem  dicebatur,  Y,  23. 

Apud  Hipponem  Zaritum  est  homo  .  .  .  XYI,  8. 
ut  omittam  qua  apud  Antiochiam  facere  coeperat,  XYIII,  52. 
evenit  ut  apud  Carthaginem  .  .  .  XXI,  4. 

Apud  Carthaginem  autem  quis  novit  .  .  .  XXII,  8. 

Apud  Hipponem  Bassus  quidam  Syrus  .  .  .  XXII,  8. 

Nondum  est  autem  biennium,  ex  quo  apud  Hipponem  regium  coepit 
esse  .  .  .  XXII,  8. 

The  following  passages  contain  apud  with  the  accusative  for  the 
locative  ablative. 

Hoc  insitum  habuisse  Romanos  etiam  deorum  apud  illos  aedes 
indicant,  Y,  12. 

qui  suas  futuras  poenas  apud  sanctorum  martyrum  memorias 4 
inminere  maerebant,  YIII,  26. 

Offero  tibi  sacrificium  Petre  vel  Paule  vel  Cypriane,  cum  apud 
eorum  memorias  offeratur  Deo,  YIII,  27. 

(b)  For  in  or  cum. 

Eight  instances  occur  where  apud  is  used  with  pronouns  and  the 
accusative  of  animus  or  its  equivalent  to  signify  an  idea,  which 
would  be  rendered  in  classical  Latin  by  in  or  cum  with  the  ablative 
thus : 

quae  mala  civitas  ilia  perpessa  sit  ab  origine  sua  sive  apud  se 
ipsam  sive  in  provinciis  sibi  iam  subditis,  II,  2. 
quam  naturalem  vocant,  apud  meliores  animus  inveniret  locum, 
YI,  8. 


4  In  Christian  Latin  the  word  memoria  took  on  a  new  meaning,  viz.,  a 
shrine,  especially  a  monument  to  a  martyr.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  here. 


75 


In  se  quippe  habebant  quod  non  videbant,  et  apud  se  imaginabantur 
quod  foris  viderant,  VIII,  5. 

ac  per  hoc  Dens,  inquiunt,  rerum  quas  facit  omnium  finitarnm 
omnes  finitas  apud  se  rationes  habet,  XII,  18. 
retento  apud  se  praecepto  Dei,  XVI,  15. 

quae  pro  malo  aureo  adipiscendo  apud  iudicem  Paridem  de  pulcri- 
tudinis  excellentia  certasse  narrantur  .  .  .  XVIII,  10. 
cum  ipse  apud  se  ipsum  maneat  idem  qui  fuit,  XXII,  2. 
meque  gaudente  et  apud  me  Deo  gratias  agente  ingreditur  .  .  . 
XXII,  8. 

In  citing  an  author  apud  is  regularly  used  in  classical  Latin : 
in  citing  a  particular  work  in  is  used.  Augustine,  in  tracing  the 
history  of  the  Septuagint,  uses  apud  and  in  for  both  translations. 
No  distinction  in  the  use  of  these  two  prepositions  is  evident,  thus: 

quidquid  est  in  Hebraeis  codicibus  et  non  est  apud  interpretes 
septuaginta,  noluit  ea  per  istos,  sed  per  illos  prophetas  Dei 
iSpiritus  dicere.  Quidquid  vero  est  apud  Septuaginta,  in 
Hebraeis  autem  codicibus  non  est,  XVIII,  43. 

3.  Ante. 

As  a  preposition,  ante  in  classical  Latin  means  “  before,”  “  in 
front  of,”  and  it  may  be  considered  as  stationary  in  meaning 
through  all  the  periods  of  Latin  literature.  The  use  of  ante  as 
an  adverb  occurs  rarely  in  classical  Latin  and  then  usually  in  the 
poets.  As  an  adverb,  it  is  found  sometimes  in  Livy,  but  few 
authors  later  so  used  it.  About  thirty  instances  of  ante  with  its 
adverbial  force  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  thus : 

qui  rem  publicam  ingratam  et  a  Veientibus  ante  defendit  .  .  . 
Ill,  17. 

Ubi  certe  agnoscendum  est,  quod  ante  promiseram,  XVI,  10. 

Cf.  also  I,  6,  7;  III,  29;  V,  17;  VII,  8,  19;  X,  5,  17,  25;  XI,  32; 
XII,  18,  21,  26;  XIII,  23;  XIV,  18;  XVI,  4,  28,  39;  XVII, 
4,  5,  18;  XVIII,  45;  XIX,  11;  XX,  6,  7,  14;  XXII,  20,  29. 

4.  Post. 

Post  meaning  “  after  ”  is  one  of  those  prepositions  which  like 
ante  presents  no  change  in  meaning  throughout  the  history  of  the 
language.  In  common  with  ante  it  retains  an  adverbial  force, 
which  has  no  greater  patronage  of  writers  in  general  than  ante. 


76 


The  following  are  the  passages  from  the  D.  C.  D.  wherein  post  is 
used  as  an  adverb : 

Unde  tanto  post  ex  Abrahae  semine  carne  suscepta  de  se  ipso  ait 
ipse  Salvator,  X,  32. 

Nam  ubi  tenebrae  inculpabiles  sunt  .  .  .  non  ante,  sed  post  in- 
fertur,  XI,  20. 

Cf.  also  III,  26,  30;  IV,  6;  V,  12;  VI,  10;  VIII,  23;  X,  25; 
XIII,  11;  XIV,  2,  11;  XVII,  17;  XVIII,  31,  33,  42,  45,  54; 
XX,  5,  7,  8,  15,  23;  XXI,  23;  XXII,  6,  8. 

Post  frequently  occurs  in  ecclesiastical  Latin  with  a  substantive 
and  a  perfect  passive  participle,  where  we  would  ordinarily  expect 
an  ablative  absolute  in  classical  Latin.  Thus  in  Gregory  we  read, 
qui  post  creata  mundi  totius  elementa  glebam  adsumens  limi 
hominem  plasmavit,  h.  F.  1,  lp,  35,  7;  in  Avitus  post  denuntiatum 
poematis  finem  p.  274,  6;  in  Cyprian,  post  episcopatum  non  ex- 
ambitum,  630,  11. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  the  following : 

Nempe  post  perpetrata  facinora  nec  quemquam  scelestum  indem- 
natum  impune  voluistis  occidi,  I,  19. 

Ex  hoc  iure  ac  bono  post  expulsum  cum  liber  is  suis  regem  Tar - 
quirmm ,  II,  17. 

Cf.  also  II,  16,  18,  19;  XII,  21;  XV,  11,  13;  XVIII,  19;  XX,  18. 

5.  Iuxta. 

Iuxta  as  a  preposition  is  used  especially  in  the  Classical  period 
with  the  local  meaning  of  “  near/5  Livy  5  is  the  first  to  vary  its 
meaning,  and  give  it  the  value  of  secundum.  Ecclesiastical  writers 
use  it  also  in  the  sense  of  secundum ,  “  according  to.” 

With  this  meaning  Augustine  uses  iuxta  in  his  Letters  and 
Sermons,  and  it  occurs  in  eight  passages  of  the  D.  C.  D.  as  follows : 

iuxta  id  dicitur,  XIV,  11. 

cutn  quibus  et  ipsi  dii  erant  iuxta  illud  psalmi,  XV,  23. 

Sed  haec  in  usum  cedunt  proficientium,  iuxta  illud  apostoli,  XVI,  2. 
Cf.  also  XIV,  9;  XVII,  7;  XX,  24;  XXI,  22;  XXII,  26. 

6.  01). 

Plautus  6  and  Terence  used  ob  with  hoc  to  express  cause.  Caesar 
and  Cicero  did  not  favor  its  use.  In  the  historians  Sallust,  Livy 


B  Schmalz,  397. 


6  Schmalz,  3C9. 


77 


and  Tacitus,  it  was  revived  and  it  became  common  in  ecclesiastical 
Latin.  Augustine  with  the  writers  of  the  period  used  it  frequently. 
The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  the  passages  in  which  ob  hoc 
is  used  in  the  D.  C.  D. 

qui  ob  hoc  etiam  ipse  Africani  cognomen  invenit,  III,  21. 
ut  per  hanc  oporteat  eis  constellationes  fieri  diversas  propter  di- 
versum  horoscopum  et  ob  hoc  diversos  omnes  cardines,  Y,  5. 
Cf.  also  Y,  18;  VIII,  12,  15,  21;  IX,  15;  X,  30,  32;  XI,  1,  10,  27; 
XII,  6;  XIY,  24;  XVII,  10;  XVIII,  2,  4,  38,  43;  XIX,  1; 
XX,  24. 

7.  Propter. 

Propter  with  its  causal  meaning  in  the  Classical  period  retains 
the  same  force  in  ecclesiastical  Latin  and  is  used  quite  frequently 
therein.  The  combinations  propter  quod  and  propter  quae  are 
non-classical.  The  former  occurs  for  the  first  time  in  Columella 
and  the  latter  appears  not  earlier  than  the  period  of  Quintilian. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  propter  quod  occurs  about  thirty-five  times  and 
propter  quae  four  times,  thus : 

(a)  propter  quod. 

propter  quod  eis  dicunt  .  .  .  VI,  9. 
propter  quod  vetus  dicitur  testamentum,  X,  25. 

ITnde  sequitur  illud,  propter  quod  et  cetera  de  eodem  psalmo  di- 
cenda  visa  sunt,  X,  25. 

Cf.  also  XIII,  23;  XV,  7,  11,  16,  21,  22;  XVI,  28;  XVII,  4,  7,  9, 
11,  16,  20,  24;  XVIII,  35,  38,  44;  XIX,  1,  4,  5,  8,  19,  26,  27; 
XX,  6,  17,  22;  XXI,  4,  5;  XXII,  8,  29,  30. 

(b)  Propter  quae. 

propter  quae  non  audent  offendere  homines,  I,  9. 
propter  quae  isti  si'bi  .  .  .  deos  multos  falsosque  fecerunt,  VII,  30. 
propter  quae  significanda  historia  ipsa  conscripta  est,  XVIII,  44. 
propter  quae  dicis  esse  fugiendam,  XIX,  4. 

8.  Circa. 

In  classical  Latin  circa  with  the  accusative  means  “  around/’ 
“  about.”  In  the  Silver  period  this  preposition  is  used  with  a 
figurative  meaning,  of  de,  in  or  ad.  We  see  it  thus  used  in  Tacitus, 
Ann.  11,  15;  in  Pliny,  29,  1,  5;  in  Suetonius  .  .  .  Caes.  45;  in 
Cyprian,  303,  2;  in  Arnobius,  V,  10;  in  Jerome,  Ep.  9. 


78 


In  Augustine’s  D.  C.  D.  there  are  nine  passages  containing  circa 
eight  of  which  are  used  with  this  figurative  meaning,  thus : 

quae  maxime  circa  corporum  est  occupata  naturam,  VII,  5. 

Cum  enim  dixisset  proavos  suos  multum  errantes  circa  deorum 
rationem,  VIII,  26. 

ceterum  circa  ea,  quae  vere  bona  sunt,  X,  11. 

Of.  also  XV,  24;  XVI,  34;  XXI,  18;  XXII,  21. 

9.  Secundum. 

Secundum  in  classical  Latin  marks  a  relation  in  space  and  means 
“  immediately  after,”  “  next  to.”  In  a  figurative  sense  it  is  much 
used  with  the  meaning  “  according  to  ”  and  in  this  sense  it  is 
used  in  Christian  writers.  Augustine  uses  it  about  one  hundred 
fifty  times  in  the  D.  C.  D.  with  this  figurative  sense  only,  thus : 

Enitar  enim  suo  loco,  ut  ostendam  secundum  definitiones  ipsius 
Ciceronis,  II,  21. 

nec  fortuita  est  nec  fatalis  secundum  eorum  sententiam  sive  opini- 
onem,  V,  1. 

Cf.  also  VIII,  8,  10,  19,  26;  IX,  5,  10;  X,  13,  21,  29;  XI,  10,  21, 
27;  XII,  23;  XIV,  7,  8,  9,  11,  21,  28;  XVI,  5,  15,  21,  24; 
XXII,  2,  11,  14,  21,  27,  29;  passim. 

10.  Per. 

In  classical  Latin  per  indicates  motion  in  space  as  well  as  in 
time,  and  means  “  through,”  “  over.”  From  the  idea  of  space 
implied  in  its  use  were  developed  instrumental  and  modal,  as  well 
as  causal  and  less  clearly  defined  uses.  Of  all  the  prepositions 
construed  with  the  accusative,  per  after  ad  is  most  frequently  used 
in  Christian  Latin.  In  classical  Latin,  when  cause  is  expressed  by 
a  preposition,  ob  or  propter  with  the  accusative  is  regularly  used, 
hut  from  the  Augustan  Age  on,  we  frequently  find  cause  expressed 
by  per  and  the  accusative. 

(a)  Expressing  cause. 

We  read  in  Quintilian,  per  hoc  quod  for  propter,  2,  17,  30;  in 
Elorus,  per  hoc,  3,  12,  9;  in  Apuleius,  ac  per  hoc,  Met.  9,  16;  in 
Cyprian,  ac  per  hoc,  729,  14. 

Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  has  a  remarkably  frequent  use  of  this 
expression.  The  total  list  of  passages  in  which  it  occurs  is  as 
follows : 


79 


Ac  per  hoc  qui  Domino  suo  monente  oboedierant,  I,  10. 

Ac  per  hoc  et  Xeptuno  et  Plutoni,  II,  15. 

Ac  per  hoc  si  tam  celeriter  alter  post  alterum  nascitur,  V,  2. 

Cf.  also  1, 14,  17,  20 ;  IV,  5,  31 ;  V,  13 ;  VI,  1,  6 ;  VII,  9,  14,  16,  21 ; 
VIII,  1,  5,  6,  16;  IX,  8,  13,  15,  21;  X,  1,  5,  6,  25,  32;  XI,  4, 

10,  13,  23,  29,  34;  XII,  1,  2,  3,  6,  8,  13,  16,  18;  XIII,  5,  9, 

11,  14;  XIV,  1,  8,  10,  11,  13,  19,  23,  27;  XV,  3,  12,  14,  15, 
18,  20,  27;  XVI,  3,  15,  28,  32,  36,  41;  XVII,  4,  6,  12,  16; 
XVIII,  18,  21,  27,  37,  54;  XIX,  1,  3,  4,  6,  7,  11,  12,  13,  14, 

17,  21,  28;  XX,  2,  8,  9,  11,  13,  20,  26;  XXI,  1,  5,  18,  22,  25, 
26,  27;  XXII,  2,  4,  11,  19,  23,  27. 

(b)  Expressing  means. 

The  use  of  per  with  the  accusative  taking  the  place  of  the  abla¬ 
tive  of  means  is  not  foreign  to  classical  literature,  where  it  is  used 
in  a  figurative  sense  with  persons.  In  ecclesiastical  Latin  we  note 
a  general  tendency  in  the  use  of  per  and  the  accusative,  not  only 
of  a  person,  but  of  a  thing,  to  replace  the  ablative,  a  step  towards 
the  meaning  which  it  is  to  have  later  in  the  Romance  languages. 
Many  instances  of  this  are  met  with  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

suo  recusans  esse  subditus  creatori  et  sua  per  superbiam  velut 
privata  potestate  laetatus,  XI,  13. 

Illi  quippe  angeli  sancti  non  per  verba  sonantia  Deum  discunt, 
XI,  29. 

qui  cum  coniuge  ac  tribus  filiis  totidemque  nuribus  suis  meruit 
per  arcam  vastatione  diluvii  liberari,  XVI,  1. 

Cf.  also  VII,  3,  5,  14,  22;  VIII,  15,  22,  23,  27;  IX,  9,  15;  X,  10, 
15,  26,  32;  XI,  13;  XII,  21,  24;  XIV,  11,  13,  21;  XV,  3,  8, 
22,  23;  XVI,  2,  4,  24,  30,  43;  XVII,  2,  4,  7,  20;  XVIII,  3, 

18,  19,  21,  45,  46,  47,  48;  XIX,  12,  14,  22,  27;  XX,  1,  9,  17, 
22,  23,  25;  XXI,  2,  9,  21,  36;  XXII,  1,  8,  9;  passim. 

ii.  With  the  Ablative. 

1.  a  or  db. 

In  classical  Latin  ab  means  “  away  from,”  “  from,”  “  off  from  ” 
with  the  ablative  case  and  determines  direction  in  space.  Out  of 
this  local  meaning,  the  Augustan  poets,  Ovid  in  particular,  devel¬ 
oped  an  instrumental  meaning.  The  use  of  this  instrumental 
meaning  of  a  or  ab  with  the  ablative  became  prevalent  in  Chris- 


80 


tian  times.  The  variations  from  classical  usage  in  the  writers  of 
this  period  are  due  to  analogy,  to  poetic  or  colloquial  influence. 

(a)  ab  with  the  ablative  for  the  dative  of  agent. 

The  dative  of  agent,  in  classical  Latin,  is  used  with  the  gerundive 
to  designate  the  person  on  whom  the  obligation  rests.  A  or  ab 
with  the  ablative  is  used  instead  of  this  regular  dative  as  follows 
in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Quoniam  constat  .  .  .  et  ideo  nullum  deum  colendum  esse  ab 
hominibus ,  V,  preface. 

si  aliquid  ab  his  ad  ilia  similitudinis  adferendum  est,  VIII,  8. 
qua  nos  ab  illo  adiuvandos  esse  credamus,  XIX,  4. 

When  treating  of  persons  not  of  things ,  classical  Latin  requires 
the  ablative  of  agency  with  a  passive  verb  accompanied  by  a  or  ab. 

In  the  D.  0.  D.  Augustine  in  three  instances  uses  ab  with  things. 
This  is  due  probably  to  an  apparent  personification  of  the  words, 
thus : 

Xeque  enim  homines  a  simulacro ,  sed  simulacrum  ab  homnibus 
servabatur,  I,  2. 

quod  et  alius  ante  Christi  nomen  temporibus  ei  contigit  ab  ilia  est 
adflictione  recreatum,  IV,  7. 

fulmina,  quae  aurea  fuissent  .  .  .  et  se  ab  eis  fulminari  velle  dis- 
centibus  hilar  iter  benigneque  donavit,  V,  26. 

(b)  Ab  with  verbs. 

sanare  takes  the  accusative  of  the  thing  as  well  as  of  the  person  in 
classical  Latin.  It  occurs  with  ab  and  the  ablative  of  the  thing 
in  the  three  following  passages  of  the  D.  C.  D. : 

ut  totum,  quo  constat  homo  a  peccatorum  peste  sanaret,  X,  27. 

Cf.  also  X,  24;  XXII,  8. 


2.  De. 

De  in  the  Classical  period  has  several  meanings.  Locally  it 
means,  “  down  from/5  “  from  ” ;  figuratively  it  means,  “  con¬ 
cerning,”  “  about,”  “  of,”  besides  having  several  idiomatic  uses. 

Ecclesiastical  Latin  in  general  has  extended  the  use  of  this 
preposition  and  it  takes  the  place  of  two  or  three  others.  It  is  the 
favorite  particle  in  colloquial  Latin  and  it  takes  first  rank  among 


81 


the  prepositions  of  the  Romance  languages.  Augustine  in  the 
D.  C.  D.  makes  use  of  the  following  variations  from  classical  Latin 
in  the  use  of  de. 

(a)  With  verbs. 

De  instead  of  ab  (a)  or  ex  with  verbs  compounded  with  ab  or 
ex  marking  the  point  of  departure. 

Auferre.  quam  sepultam  de  monumento  putabat  ablatam ,  XIV,  2. 
Cf.  also  XXI,  11 ;  XXII,  8. 

Egredi.  quando  egressus  est  de  Charra,  XVI,  15. 

Cf.  also  XVI,  16;  XX,  20. 

Emicare.  incendia  de  nubibus  emicasse ,  IV,  2. 

Erumpere.  quando  de  fontibus  Israel  in  eis  literis  .  .  .  pro- 
phetiae  flumen  erupit,  XVIII,  37. 

Cf.  also  XX,  11. 

eiicere.  et  de  possessis  hominum,  corporis  eiciuntur,  VIII,  26. 

Cf.  also  XVI,  31;  XX,  26;  XXII,  22. 

excludere.  ad  dissociandum  atque  excludendam  de  corpore  animam 
.  .  .  XIX,  12. 

exire.  Xachor  f rater  Abrahae  exisse  de  regione  Chaldaeorum  .  .  . 
XVI,  13. 

Cf.  also  XVI,  3,  15,  16;  XVII,  18;  XX,  15,  20;  XXI,  15,  25. 
exorire.  Unde  apparet  de  progenie  Sem  exortos  fuisse,  XVI,  3. 
exsculpere.  qui  potuerint  illic  de  quacumque  re  gesta  sen  sum.  in- 
tellegentiae  spiritalis  exsculpere,  XVII,  3. 
avellere.  quibus  avulsis  de  sedibus  propriis  et  propter  hoc  testi¬ 
monium  toto  orbe  dispersis  Christi  usquequaque  crevit  ecclesia, 
XVIII,  47. 

avert  ere.  de  via  recta  conantur  avert  ere,  XII,  18. 
expectare.  quam  de  illo  expectabat,  X,  25. 

Verbs  compounded  otherwise,  followed  by  de  instead  of  the 
classical  ab  or  ex  and  the  ablative. 

redire.  quod  ei  redeunte  de  proelio  victori  primitus  occurrisset, 

I,  21. 

recedere.  et  de  rure  proprio  non  recedit,  V,  6. 

Cf.  also  XXII,  22. 

perire.  nec  de  ipso  corpore  perit  sanctitas,  I,  18. 

Verbs  not  usually  found  with  de  in  classical  Latin. 

fidere  is  followed  by  the  dative  or  ablative  without  a  preposition  in 
6C 


82 


classical  Latin.  One  passage  with  de  and  the  ablative  occurs 
in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

si  de  adiutorio  Dei  fideret  bonus  homo,  XIV,  27. 
gander e  takes  the  ablative  alone  in  classical  Latin.  It  occurs  here 
with  de,  thus : 

quo  modo  de  veritate  gaudebat?  X,  30. 

nasci  generally  takes  the  ablative  alone,  ab  or  ex  with  the  ablative 
and  rarely  de  with  the  ablative  in  classical  Latin. 

The  following  instances  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  with  de: 

natus  quippe  fuerat  et  ipse  de  Adam  pro  illo,  quem  frater  occidit, 

IV,  8. 

Cf.  also  XV,  13,  23,  27;  XVI,  1,  12. 

liberare  takes  the  ablative  without  a  preposition  in  classical  Latin. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  the  following  passages  with  de: 
per  quem  populus  idem  de  servitute  Aegyptia  liberatus  .  .  . 
XVII,  2. 

Cf.  also  XVIII,  4,  7,  21;  XXII,  23. 

orire  in  classical  Latin  takes  the  ablative  alone.  It  may  take  ab 
but  not  de. 

We  find  the  following  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

tanta  de  rebus  prosper  is  orta  mala  continuo  subsecuta  sunt,  I,  30. 
Cf.  also  VI,  7. 

(b)  de  with  the  ablative,  expressing  cause. 

In  expressing  cause  in  classical  Latin  the  ablative  without  a 
preposition  is  used  as  well  as  other  constructions  such  as  ob,  per, 
propter  and  the  accusative.  In  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  de  and 
the  ablative  in  about  twenty-five  passages  to  express  cause,  thus: 

nisi  .  .  .  vitam,  de  qua  superbiunt,  invenirent,  I,  1. 
ne  civitatem,  cui  serviebant,  de  conditore  eius  offenderent,  XXII,  6. 
Cf.  also  I,  28;  III,  31;  IV,  10;  V,  2,  20;  VIII,  27;  XVIII,  10,  39, 
45;  XIX,  27;  XXI,  27;  passim. 

(c)  Origin  expressed  by  de  and  the  ablative. 

Origin  in  classical  Latin  is  usually  expressed  by  the  ablative 
alone,  sometimes  with  ex  and  ab  and  rarely  with  de.7  About  seven 
instances  of  de  and  the  ablative  to  express  origin  occur  in  the 
D.  C.  D.,  thus : 


7  Cf .  nasci ,  above. 


83 


Nam  hunc  Homerus  de  stirpe  Aenae,  III,  2. 
de  qua  omnia  fierent,  YIII,  2. 

Of.  also  XVII,  9;  XVIII,  21,  23;  XXII,  8,  11. 

(d)  Means  expressed  by  de  and  ablative. 

Means  is  usually  expressed  by  the  ablative  alone  in  classical 
Latin.  Three  instances  of  de  with  the  ablative  to  express  means 
occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

tantum  quod  plebs  ilia,  quae  suos  agros  non  haberet,  de  publico 
viveret,  V,  17. 

Verum  illud,  quod  de  abscisorum  consecratione  Mater  deum  coli 
meruit,  VII,  26. 

Iam  hinc  tempore  consequuntur  filiorum  Abrahae,  unius  de  Agar 
ancilla,  alterius  de  Sarra  libera,  de  quibus  in  libro  superiore 
iam  diximus,  XVI,  25. 

(e)  Partitive  de. 

In  classical  Latin  de  with  the  ablative  is  sometimes  used  with  a 
partitive  signification  instead  of  the  partitive  genitive.  It  is 
limited,  however,  to  a  few  recognized  expressions  as  unus  de  multis , 
homo  de  plebe,  etc.  In  ecclesiastical  Latin,  it  is  used  much  more 
frequently,  being  extended  to  things  as  well  as  to  persons. 

Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  uses  the  partitive  de  in  the  following 
passages : 

populum  suum  in  Aegypto  de  paucissimis  multiplicavit  .  .  .  IV, 
34. 

Hieremias  propheta  de  maioribus  est,  XVIII,  33. 
ne  quid  eis  contingat  mali  de  tantis  malorum  aggeribus  huius 
saeculi,  XIX,  8. 

Cf.  also  IX,  13;  XIII,  21;  XVIII,  29,  33,  42;  XX,  30;  XXII, 
8,  13;  passim. 

3.  E  or  ex. 

E  or  ex  in  classical  Latin  means  “  from,”  “  out  of.”  In  the 
previous  sections  we  have  noted  that  ab  and  de  have  in  many  in¬ 
stances  taken  the  place  of  ex.  Nevertheless,  ex  like  ab  and  de,  has 
a  variety  of  uses  in  late  Latin  which  are  rare  in  the  Classical  period. 
A  general  tendency,  very  evident  in  ecclesiastical  Latin,  is  a  con¬ 
fusion  in  the  use  of  prepositions  in  general,  but  especially  with 
ab,  de  and  ex. 


84 


The  extension  and  variations  in  the  nse  of  e  or  ex  found  in  the 
D.  C.  D.  of  Augustine  are  the  following : 

(a)  With  verbs. 

accipere  usually  takes  ab  in  classical  Latin.  It  occurs  in  the 
D.  C.  D.  with  ex,  thus : 

quae  Israelitae  sali  tunc  ex  omnibus  gentibus  acceperunt,  XVII,  4. 
Cf.  also  VII,  13. 

recipere  in  classical  Latin  may  be  construed  with  the  accusative, 
dative,  and  with  de  and  the  ablative.  The  following  occurs 
with  ex: 

Quam  vult  ergo  intellegi  animae  liberandae  universalem  viam  non- 
dum  receptam  vel  ex  aliqua  verissima  philosophia  ex  earum 
gentium  doctrinis,  X,  32. 

timere  in  classical  Latin  may  take  de,  ab  and  pro  with  the  ablative. 

Here  it  occurs  once  with  ex,  thus : 

Deus  absit  ut  contaminationem  timeret  ex  homine  quo  indutus  est, 
IX,  17. 

gaudere  takes  the  accusative  or  ablative  alone  in  classical  Latin. 

It  occurs  in  the  following  passage  with  ex: 
sed  proclives  ad  libidinem  nisi  ex  voluptatibus  .  .  .  gaudere  nes- 
ciunt,  XIV,  2. 

(b)  Partitive  ex. 

Ex  like  de  is  used  in  classical  Latin  with  a  partitive  signification, 
and  like  de,  also,  is  limited  to  certain  expressions  as  quidam  ex  his, 
units  ex  multis,  etc. 

This  construction  is  used  more  frequently  in  ecclesiastical  Latin. 
In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  occur : 

consulens  ex  his  duobus  elegit  liberum  voluntates  arbitrium,  V,  9. 
Omnes  hi  ex  illis  sunt,  VII,  2. 

et  eorum  quos  ex  Iudaeis  praedestinavit  vocavit,  XXI,  24. 

Cf.  also  III,  26;  IV,  8,  11;  VI,  12;  VII,  1,  10;  VIII,  1,  12,  14; 
IX,  7,  27;  X,  12;  XI,  13;  XII,  12;  XIV,  13;  XV,  3;  passim. 

4.  Cum. 

In  the  use  of  cum  as  a  preposition  Augustine  usually  conforms  to 
classical  usage.  In  many  instances,  however,  cum  and  the  ablative 
of  a  substantive  is  used  with  the  force  of  an  adverb.8 


8  Cf.  Chapter  I  on  substantives. 


85 


5.  Absque. 

Classical  writers  did  not  use  the  preposition  absque .9  Plautus 
and  Terence  used  it  with  pronouns  only,  as  absque  me,  te,  .  .  . 
esset,  absque  eo  esset.  Its  use  as  a  preposition  was  revived  by 
Apulieus  and  Aulus  Gellius  who  used  it  as  a  synonym  for  sine. 
It  was  used  frequently  in  the  sermo  familiaris  and  is  characteristic 
of  African  Latin.  It  occurs  often  in  J erome,  not  at  all  in  Arnobius 
and  Cyprian.  It  appears  occasionally  in  Augustine,  both  in  his 
Letters  and  Sermons.  Three  instances  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

quanto  magis  absque  culpa  est  in  corpore  non  consentientis,  si 
absque  culpa  est  in  corpore  dormientis,  I,  25. 
sine  morte  media  beatam  inmortalitatem  absque  ullo  termino  con- 
sectus,  XII,  22. 

In  this  last  passage,  sine  and  absque  are  used  with  apparently 
the  same  meaning. 

hi.  Prepositions  with  Accusative  and  Ablative. 

1.  With  the  accusative. 

(a)  in. 

The  preposition  in  is  used  in  classical  Latin  both  with  the  accu¬ 
sative  and  ablative.  With  the  accusative  it  has  a  local  meaning, 
"till.”  "until,”  besides  its  idiomatic  uses.  With  the  ablative  it 
means  "in,”  "on,”  "among.”  In  ecclesiastical  Latin  the  prepo¬ 
sition  in  forms  no  exception  to  the  other  prepositions  in  frequency 
as  well  as  extension  of  use. 

The  following  are  the  variations  from  classical  usage  which  we 
find  in  Christian  writers 10  in  general  and  in  Augustine  in  par¬ 
ticular. 

(a)  With  verbs. 

The  following  are  verbs  from  the  D.  C.  D.  with  in  and  the  accu¬ 
sative,  which  do  not  conform  to  classical  usage : 

Adtrahere  takes  ad  and  the  accusative  in  classical  Latin.  Here  it 
occurs  with  in: 

°Schmalz,  411. 

10  Bonnet,  591;  Goelzer  (1),  348;  Bayard,  144;  Gabarrou,  113;  Kaulen. 
239. 


86 


quod  salutus  diabolus  seductas  gentes  toto  orbe  terrarum  adtrahet 
in  bellum  adversus  earn,  XX,  8. 

Cf.  also  XX,  11,  12. 

credere  takes  the  dative  in  classical  Latin.  It  occurs  in  about 
twenty-eight  passages  in  the  D.  C.  D.  with  in  and  the  accusative, 
thus : 

id  est  ex  Iudaea  credentes  in  Christum ,  XVIII,  31. 

Cf.  also  IV,  20;  V,  14;  VII,  33;  VIII,  24;  XVI,  39;  XVII,  5,  12, 
16;  XVIII,  28,  33,  45,  48,  50,  54;  XX,  6,  21,  29,  30;  XXII,  4. 

dominari  in  classical  Latin  takes  in  with  the  ablative.  Here  it 
occurs  with  in  and  the  accusative,  thus : 

Mortis  autem  regnum  in  homines  usque  adeo  dominatum  est, 
XIV,  1. 

sperare  usually  takes  the  accusative  without  a  preposition  in  classi¬ 
cal  Latin.  Here  it  occurs  with  in,  thus : 
quo  modo  earn  perficit  sperantibus  in  eum  .  .  .  qui  sperant  in 
eum?  XXI,  24. 

Cf.  also  XVII,  12. 

(ft)  In  to  designate  end  of  motion. 

Sometimes  in  classical  Latin  we  find  in  to  express  end  of  motion, 
although  ad  with  the  accusative  is  preferred.  We  read  in  Cicero, 
Venerat  in  funus,  ad.  Att.  15,  1;  in  Caesar,  neu  se  .  .  .  hastibus 
in  cruciatum  dedant.  B.  G.  7,  71,  13. 

From  Tacitus  on  through  the  Christian  period  we  are  impressed 
with  the  frequency  of  its  use,  thus : 

Min.  Felix,  aliquem  in  exemplum  praedicare,  36,  8;  in  Cyprian, 
homo  acciditur,  in  hominis  voluptatem,  6,  13;  in  Arnobius, 
labem  machinantur  in  mutuam,  II,  43. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find : 

Unde  quidam  hoc  praeceptum  etiam  in  bestias  ac  pecora  conantur 
extendere,  I,  20. 
ne  in  luxuriam  flueretis,  I,  33. 

Mirandum  in  honor em  Christi  processit  exemplum,  I,  33. 

Cf.  also  I,  9,  10,  12,  24,  27,  28,  36;  II,  5,  10,  29;  III,  15,  17;  IV, 
1,  2,  3,  4,  10;  VIII,  19;  XI,  7;  XII,  14,  23;  passim. 

(y)  In  with  adjectives. 

The  use  of  adjectives  of  the  third  declension  taken  substantively 


87 


and  depending  on  a  preposition  as  in  commune  is  an  idiom  taken 
over  from  the  Greek.  Sallust 11  is  the  first  to  introduce  the  ex¬ 
pression  in  maius.  In  Livy  we  read,  Marii  virtutem  in  maius  cele- 
brare,  IV,  1,  5.  By  analogy  to  in  maius  the  following  expressions 
in  melius ,  in  deterius  etc.  were  used  especially  by  Christian  writers. 
In  the  D.  C.  D.  the  following  similar  expressions  occur : 

In  deterius,  XIV,  1 ;  XVII,  4. 

In  commune,  XIII,  23. 

In  peius,  XVII,  4;  XV,  5. 

In  melius,  XVII,  4;  XX,  16;  XXI,  24,  27. 

In  sempiternum,  XXI,  11. 

In  proximum,  XXI,  27. 

In  pervisum,  XXI,  24. 

2.  With  the  ablative. 

No  clearly  marked  use  of  in  with  the  ablative  at  variance  with 
classical  usage  occurs  in  the  D.  C.  D. 


11  Brenous,  431. 


CHAPTER  IX— CONJUNCTIONS. 


Conjunctions  like  prepositions  are  closely  allied  to  adverbs. 
Originally,  conjunctions  as  well  as  prepositions  and  adverbs  were 
cases  of  nouns  or  pronouns  which  became  fixed  with  a  special  form 
and  meaning.  Almost  throughout  the  literary  period  of  the  lan¬ 
guage,  the  consciousness  of  any  characteristic  of  the  noun  was  lost. 

In  the  Imperial  epoch,  from  Livy  on,  arbitrary  uses  of  con¬ 
junctive  particles  are  very  evident,  and  variations  not  only  in  use 
but  also  in  meaning  begin  to  appear.  The  writers  seem  gradually 
to  lose  the  exact  values  which  were  assigned  conjunctions  in  the 
Classical  period. 

The  variations  from  classical  Latin,  which  evolved  during  the 
Imperial  epoch,  passed  into  Christian 1  literature  whose  authors 
show  the  f ollowing  peculiarities : 

i.  Quod,  quia  and  quoniam. 

Of  all  the  uses  of  quod ,  quia  and  quoniam  which  appear  in  ec¬ 
clesiastical  Latin,  the  most  interesting  is  that  wherein  the  con¬ 
junctive  clauses,  whether  with  indicative  or  subjunctive  mood, 
begin  to  replace  the  classical  use  of  the  accusative  and  the  infinitive 
for  indirect  statements.2 

1.  Quod  for  quin  after  dubitare. 

Ammianus  Marcellinus,  an  historian  of  the  fourth  century  A.  D., 
is  the  first 3  to  use  quod  for  quin  after  dubitare.  This  construction 
was  not  favorably  accepted,  although  it  secured  a  place  in  the 
language. 

With  the  verb  dubitare  which  occurs  about  seventy  times  in  the 
D.  C.  D.,  Augustine  does  not  use  quin  once.  The  classical  con¬ 
struction  of  the  infinitive  after  dubitare ,  meaning  “  to  hesitate,” 
has  been  already  treated.4  However,  quod  for  quin  occurs  in  the 
four  following  passages : 

1  Goelzer  (2),  329;  Bayard,  158;  Gabarrou,  167. 

2  Cf.  Chapter  VI  on  moods. 

3  Schmalz,  342. 

4Cf.  Chapter  VI  on  Moods  (Section  on  Infinitive). 

88 


89 


Cum  vero  et  ilia  vera  atque  certa  sint,  quis  dubitet  quod  eorum, 
cum  amantur,  et  ipse  amor  verus  et  certus  est?  XI,  27. 

Absit  itaque  ut  dubitemus,  quod  ei  notus  sit  omnis  numerus,  XII, 
19. 

certe  fides  Christiana  de  ipso  Salvatore  non  dubitat ,  quod  etiam 
post  resurrectionem  .  .  .  cibum  ac  potum  cum  discipulis 
sumpsit,  XIII,  22. 

Licet  enim  iustorum  ac  piorum  animae  defunctorum  quod  in  requie 
vivant  dubitare  fas  non  sit,  XIII,  21. 

2.  Non  quod ,  non  quia ,  introducing  a  reason. 

In  Plautus,  an  untenable  reason  is  introduced  by  non  eo  quia; 
in  Terence  by  non  eo  quo ;  in  Cicero  usually  by  non  quod  or  non 
quo ,  seldom  by  neque  or  non  eo  quo.  Non  quia 5  is  rarely  used 
in  classical  Latin,  but  it  occurs  frequently  from  Livy  on,  and 
becomes  common  in  ecclesiastical  writers;  also  from  the  Imperial 
epoch  on,  quia  begins  to  replace  quod. 

Out  of  seventeen  instances  where  Augustine  introduces  an  un¬ 
tenable  reason,  he  uses  non  quia  twelve  times,  non  quo  three  times 
and  non  quod  twice.  He  conforms  to  the  classical  usage  in  the 
use  of  mood,  viz.,  the  subjunctive,  but  if  the  clauses  contain  a  fact, 
even  though  the  fact  be  denied  as  the  reason,  they  are  construed 
with  the  indicative. 

(a)  Non  quia  with  the  subjunctive. 

Haec  autem  propter  senarii  numeri  perfectionem  eodem  die  sexiens 
reptitio  sex  diebus  perfecta  narrantur,  non  quia  Deo  fuerit 
necessaria  mora  temporum  .  .  .  sed  quia  per  senarium  nu- 
merum  est  operum  significata  perfectio,  XI,  30. 

(b)  Non  quia  with  the  indicative. 

Flagellantur  enim  simul,  non  quia  simul  agunt  malam  vitam,  sed 
quia  amant  temporalem  vitam,  I,  9. 

Tunc  iam  deminuto  paululum  metu,  non  quia  bella  conquieverant , 
sed  quia  non  tarn  gravi  pondere  urgebant,  III,  17. 

Unde  et  spiritalia  erunt,  non  quia  corpora  esse  desistent  sed  quia 
spiritu  vivicante  subsistent,  XIII,  22. 

Cf.  also  I,  23;  XI,  27;  XII,  14;  XIII,  20,  22,  23;  XIV,  4;  XVI, 
6;  XIX,  6. 


6  Schmalz,  545;  Rletman  and  Goelzer,  462. 


90 


(c)  Non  quo  with  the  subjunctive. 

Sed  a  contrario  martyres  nostri  heroes  noncuparentur,  si,  ut  dixi, 
usus  ecclesiastici  sermonis  admitteret,  non  quo  eis  esset  cum 
daemonibus  in  aere  societas,  sed  quod  eosdem  daemones,  .  .  . 
vincerent  .  .  .  X,  21. 

ad  cumulum  a  nobis  commemorari  potest;  non  quo  necessarius  sit 
etiamsi  desit,  sed  quia  non  incongrue  creditur  fuisse,  .  .  . 

XVIII,  47. 

audiatur  timeatur  impleatur,  ne  inoboedientes  eradicato  conse- 
quatur  .  .  .  “  Sacrificans,”  inquit,  .  .  .  non  quo  rei  egeat 
alicuius,  sed  quia  nobis  expedit,  XIX,  23. 

(d)  Non  quod  with  the  subjunctive. 

Ex  illis  autem  quattuor  rebus  Varro  tres  tollit,  voluptatem  scilicet 
et  quietem  et  utrumque;  non  quod  eas  inprobet ,  sed.  quod 
primigenia  ilia  naturae  et  voluptatem  in  se  habeant  et  quietem, 
XIX,  2. 

(e)  Non  quod  with  the  indicative. 

Qui  vero  pro  aliquo  grandi  crimine  morte  multatur,  numquid  mora 
qua  occiditur,  quae  perbrevis  est,  eius  supplicium  leges  aesti- 
mant  et  non  quod  eum  in  sempiternum  auferunt  de  societate 
viventium?  XXI,  11. 

3.  Quod  with  a  finite  mood  after  persuadere. 

The  classical  constructions  with  persuadere  are  (1)  comple¬ 
mentary  final  clauses  introduced  by  ut,  and  (2)  the  accusative 
with  the  infinitive  in  some  authors,  notably  Terence,  Lucretius 
and  Virgil.  Quod  is  non-classical.  One  instance  of  quod  and  the 
subjunctive  with  persuadere  occurs  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

Quibusdam  vero  vitia  eorum  aliquanto  adtentius  et  diligentius 
intuentibus  non  potuerunt  persuadere  quod  dii  sint,  VIII,  22. 

II.  Quamdiu. 

Quamdiu  in  classical  Latin  meaning  “  as  long  as  ”  6  is  not  found 
in  all  writers,  e.  g.  Tacitus  and  Floras  do  not  use  it  at  all,  while 
others,  such  as  Pliny  the  Elder,  use  it  in  preference  to  dum.  Cicero 
uses  the  perfect  tense  with  quamdiu  when  the  verb  of  the  main 


8  Schmalz,  553. 


91 


clause  is  perfect,  thus :  quorum  quamdiu  mansit  imitatio,  tamdiu 
genus  illud  dicenti  vixit,  D.  0.  2,  94. 

Once  in  the  D.  C.  D.  Augustine  uses,  with  no  apparent  reason, 
the  subjunctive  with  quamdiu  meaning  “as  long  as,”  thus: 

Nec  saltern  potuerunt  unam  Segetiam  talem  invenire,  cui  semel 
segetes  commendarent,  sed  sata  frumenta,  quamdiu  sub  terra 
essent ,  praepositam  voluerunt  habere  deam  Seiam,  IV,  8. 

In  Silver  Latin  quamdiu,  the  equivalent  of  donee  meaning 
“until”  and  followed  by  the  subjunctive  is  used  for  the  first  time 
by  Javolenus  Priscus.7  Among  the  exponents  of  this  usage  are: 
Salvius  Julianus,  Domitius  Ulpianus,  Cyprian,  Spartian  and 
Cassian.  The  first  to  use  quamdiu  for  donee,  meaning  “  until,” 
is  Ammianus  Marcellinus. 

Augustine  uses  quamdiu  with  the  value  of  donee,  “  until  ”  with 
the  subjunctive  but  once  in  the  D.  C.  D.,  thus : 

Cui  non  sufficere  videretur  ilia  Segetia,  quamdiu  seges  ab  initiis 
herbidis  usque  ad  aristas  aridas  pervenerit?  IV,  8. 

hi.  Quamvis  and  quamquam. 

Quamvis  and  quamquam  have  both  retained  their  classical  mean¬ 
ing  in  ecclesiastical  Latin.  Variations,  however,  in  the  use  of 
these  conjugations  do  appear  in  Silver  and  in  Christian  Latin. 
These  are  discussed  in  Chapter  VI  on  moods. 

iv.  Dum. 

Rare  instances  of  dum  with  the  value  of  cum  (circumstantial) 
occur  in  the  Augustan  literature.8  In  Livy  we  read,  Dum  intentus 
in  eum  se  rex  totus  averteret,  alter  elatam  securim  in  caput  deiecit, 
I,  40,  7;  in  Virgil,  Ilia  quidem,  dum  te  fugeret  per  flumina  prae- 
ceps,  G,  IV.;  in  Phaedrus,  Canis  per  flumen,  carnem  dum  ferret, 
notans  vidit  simulacrum  suum,  I,  4,  2.  This  construction  is  un¬ 
known  to  the  writers  of  the  Silver  age.  It  does  not  occur  in 
Tacitus  or  Suetonius,  or  Plorus  or  even  Apulieus.  It  reappears 
in  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era  in  Aurelius  Victor  and 
Ammianus  iMarcellinus,  and  occurs  also  in  Jerome,  Gregory, 
Arnobius.  The  following  instances  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D. : 

7  Sohmalz,  553. 

8  Schmalz,  558. 


92 


Et  saepe  universi  exercitus,  dum  pro  terrena  patria  morerentur , 
nbi  postea  iacerent  vel  quibus  bestiis,  esca  fierant,  I,  12. 

Iam  mult  os  moverat,  quod  miles  quidam,  dum  occiso  spolia  de- 
iraheret,  fratrem  nudato  cadavere  agnovit  ac  detestatus  bella 
civilia  se  ipsum  ibi  perimens  fraterno  corpori  adiunxit,  II,  25. 
Quod  enim  conantur  efficere  de  intervallo  exiguo  temporis,  quod 
inter  se  gemini  dum  nascerentur  habuerunt,  Y,  2. 

An  forte  quia  diverso  horoscopo  nati  sunt,  aut  ille  in  masculum, 
dum  nascerentur ,  aut  ilia  in  feminam  commutata  est?  Y,  6. 
Quo  damnato  et  occiso,  utrum  nocentem  an  innocentem  nesciens 
occideret  torsit;  ac  per  hoc  innocentem  et  ut  sciret  torsit,  et 
dum  nesciret  occidit,  XIX,  6. 

Xam  et  de  caelo  novo  ac  terra  nova  iam  supra  dixerat,  dum  ea, 
quae  sanctis  promittuntur  in  fine,  saepe  ac  multiformiter 
dicer  et,  XX,  21. 

Dum  ergo  requireremus  quid  factum  fuerit,  unde  ille  strepitus 
laetus  extiterit,  ingressi  sunt  cum  ilia  in  basilicam,  XXII,  8. 
Cf.  also  Y,  2;  XXII,  17. 

Exceptionally  rare,  in  any  period  of  the  Latin  language,  is  the 
use  of  dum  with  the  pluperfect  subjunctive.  It  is  however  found 
in  Cassiodorus  and  Ammianus  Mar  cell  inus  of  the  fourth  century, 

A.  D. 

One  instance  of  dum  for  cum  circumstantial,  with  the  pluperfect 
subjunctive  occurs  in  the  following  passage  of  the  D.  C.  D. : 

Dum  enim  rotam  figuli  vi  quanta  potuit  intorsisset,  currente  ilia 
bis  numero  de  atramento  tamquam  uno  eius  loco  summa  celeri- 
tate  percussit,  Y,  4. 

v.  Ut. 

In  classical  Latin  the  particle  ut  is  used  as  a  conjunction  in  a 
great  number  of  complementary  clauses.  Such  clauses  are  called 
substantive  or  logical  complements  and  include  two  main  divisions, 
(i)  clauses  which  are  complements  of  certain  verbs  manifesting 
volition  or  activity,  (2)  clauses  which  are  subjects  of  certain  im¬ 
personal  expressions.  Ut  is  also  used  in  pure  final  and  consecutive 
clauses.  The  principal  deviations  from  classical  Latin  which  Chris¬ 
tian  writers  show  in  the  use  of  ut  are  the  following : 

1  ut  non  for  ne  in  negative  clauses  of  purpose. 

2  ut  for  quo  in  clauses  containing  a  comparative  expression. 


93 


3  ut  with  the  subjunctive  for  the  accusative  and  infinitive  after 
verba  sentiendi  et  declarandi. 

k  ut  non  for  ne  after  verbs  of  preventing. 

5  ut  with  the  subjunctive  after  verbs  and  expressions  (not  included 
under  3)  which  usually  take  the  infinitive  in  classical  Latin. 

Examples  of  each  of  these  categories  appear  in  the  D.  C.  D.  as 

follows : 

(1)  Ad  hoc  enim  speculators,  hoc  est  populorum  praeposite;  con- 
stitut  i  sunt  in  ecclesiis,  ut  non  par  cant  obiurgando  peccata, 

I,  9. 

Mulier  autem  virorum  pretiosas  animas  captat,  ut  ille  magnae 
indolis  animus  hoc  velut  divino  testimonio  sublimatus  et  vere 
se  optimum  existimans  veram  pietatem  religionemque  non 
quaereret,  II,  5. 

Et  certe  si  Eortuna  loquitur,  non  saltern  muliebris,  sed  virilis 
potius  loqueretur,  ut  non  ipsae,  quae  simulacrum  dedicaverunt, 
putarentur ,  IV,  19. 

Uec  deus  Spiniensis,  ut  spinas  ex  agris  eradicaretur,  nec  dea 
Eobigo,  ut  non  accederet,  rogaretur,  IV,  21. 

Ut  autem  aliter  annum  tunc  fuisse  computatum  non  sit  incredibile, 
adiciunt  quod  apud  plerosque  scriptores  historiae  reperitur, 
XV,  12. 

Longitudinem  fugio,  ut  non  haec  per  multa  demonstrem,  XVIII, 
44. 

nihil  ei  nocere  permittitur,  cui  procul  dubio  et  rebus  prosperis 
consolatio,  ut  non  frangatur  adversis,  et  rebus  adversis  exer- 
citatio,  ut  non  corrumpatur  prosperis,  XVIII,  51. 

Ut  enim  in  Christi  nativitate  huius  rei  non  ponamus  initium  .  .  . 
procul  dubio  tunc  innotuit  per  eius  corporalem  praesentiam 
doctrina  et  religio  Christiana,  XVIII,  54. 

2.  Hoc  ut  facilius  diiudicetur ,  non  vanescamus  inani  ventositate 
iactati,  IV,  3. 

The  following  passage  also  contains  quo  for  ut, 

Unde  tres  modios  anulorum  aureorum  Carthaginem  misit,  quo 
intellegerent  tantam  in  illo  proelio  dignitatem  cecidisse  Eoma- 
nam,  ut  facilius  earn  caperet  mensura  quam  numerus,  III,  19. 

3.  For  this  construction,  cf.  Chapter  VI  on  Moods. 

4.  Ego  autem  ut  hoc  non  ita  faciam,  sicut  videtur  ipsa  expectatio 
postulare  .  .  .  copia  quam  incopia  magis  impedior,  XVII,  15. 


94 


Verum  si  hoc  ad  resurrectionis  formam,  in  qua  erit  unusquisque, 
referendum  esset,  quid  nos  impediret  nominato  viro  intellegere 
et  feminam,  ut  virum  pro  homine  positum  acciperemus? 
XXII,  18. 

5.  sed  ilii  iubent  ut  sacrificio  serviamus ,  X,  16. 
nec  iubent ,  ut  sacrificium  faciamus,  X,  32. 
quae  postea  iussit  ut  redderet,  XXI,  27. 

iubent e  sancto  episcopo  Aurelio  etiam  ut  veniret  Carthaginem 
fecimus,  XXII,  8. 

sinamus,  ut  ea,  quae  vere  vitia  sunt  virtutes  vocentur,  XI Y,  9. 
tamen  uteumque  conatus  est ,  ut  .  .  .  ratio  deleniret,  VII,  33. 
ita  ut  iussisse  perhibeatur,  ne  saltern  mortuo  in  ingrati  patria 
funus  fieret ,  III,  21. 

vi.  Licet. 

Licet  was  not  used  as  a  conjunction  until  after  Cicero.  Properly- 
speaking  it  was  a  verb  in  the  present  tense  meaning  “  it  is  granted 
and  took  the  usual  sequence  of  tenses.  When  licet  was  first  used 
as  a  concessive  conjunction  it  retained  its  original  verbal  force  and 
the  present  or  perfect  subjunctive  was  construed  with  it  by  classical 
writers.  Juvenal  uses  it  more  frequently  than  quamvis  as  a  con¬ 
cessive  conjunction.  Tacitus  uses  it  only  in  his  Annals  and  History. 
In  the  jurists  from  Julianus  on  it  becomes  more  and  more  fre¬ 
quent,  until  in  the  third  century  A.  D.  it  is  employed  oftener  than 
quamvis. 

In  the  L).  C.  D.  Augustine  uses  licet  with  the  imperfect  sub¬ 
junctive  in  the  three  following  passages: 

Xon  solum  enim  non  erit  tale,  quale  nunc  est  in  quavis  optima 
valetudine  .  .  .  quale  fuit  in  primis  hominibus  ante  peccatum 
qui  licet  morituri  non  essent,  XIII,  20. 

Quae  licet  senio  non  veterescerent,  XIII,  20. 
licet  in  corpore  animali  esset,  XIV,  12. 

One  instance  of  licet  and  the  pluperfect  subjunctive  occurs,  thus : 

ab  hoste  provocatus  iuvenali  ardore  pugnaverat,  licet ,  vicisset,  occi- 
dit,  Y,  18. 

VII.  Quamlibet. 

The  indefinite  adverb  quamlibet  was  first  used  as  a  synonym  for 
the  concessive  conjunction  quamvis  by  the  poets.  The  writers  8 

9Schmalz,  555;  Riemann  and  Goelzer,  484;  Goelzer  (2),  337;  Bonnet, 
325. 


95 


of  the  Christian  period  took  it  over  and  we  find  it  replacing 
quamvis  and  the  subjunctive.  Ammianus  Marcellinus  even  used 
the  indicative  with  quamlibet. 

Two  passages  occur  in  the  D.  C.  D.  where  quamlibet  is  used 
with  the  subjunctive  with  the  force  of  a  concessive  conjunction. 

Sed  quod  pertinet  ad  praesentem  quaestionem,  quamlibet  lauda- 
bilem  dicant  istam  fuisse  .  .  .  II,  22. 

Quamlibet  enim  de  quacumque  re  propriae  sint  atque  manifestae 
propheticae  locutiones,  necesse  est  ut  eis  etiam  tropicae  mis- 
ceantur,  XVII,  16. 

vm.  Si. 

Conditional  sentences. 

Classical  writers  have  at  all  times  permitted  themselves  much 
liberty  in  the  use  of  mood  and  tense  in  conditional  sentences. 
Accordingly,  grammarians  exhibit  considerable  latitude  and  variety 
in  their  explanations  of  the  underlying  principles.  Lane  has  no 
less  than  eighty-eight  combinations  of  conditional  periods  taken 
from  classical  literature,  which  indicates  the  difficulty  involved  in 
trying  to  classify  the  conditional  sentences  of  any  author  as 
classical  or  non-classical.  The  forms  assumed  by  such  sentences 
depended  rather  upon  the  individual  viewpoint  of  the  writer  than 
on  any  recognized  and  restricting  set  of  rules. 

In  general  Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  conforms  to  the  common 
classical  constructions  in  his  use  of  conditional  periods.  In  Chap¬ 
ter  V  on  Voice  and  Tense,  a  confusion  of  time,  resulting  from  the 
complex  forces  influencing  the  language  at  that  period,  is  noted. 
This  confusion  exists  no  less  in  the  tenses  of  the  conditional  sen¬ 
tences.  Augustine  uses  a  large  number  of  contrary  to  fact  con¬ 
ditional  sentences,  and  among  these  the  imperfect  subjunctive 
appears  frequently  for  the  pluperfect  and  vice  versa. 

In  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences,  classical  writers  rarely 
confused  the  tenses.  The  pluperfect  subjunctive  is  used  in  both 
protasis  and  apodosis  for  past  action,  the  imperfect  subjunctive  in 
protasis  and  apodosis  when  the  statement  refers  to  present  time. 
The  imperfect  subjunctive  might  also  denote  past  time  of  repeated 
action  or  action  continuing  into  the  present. 

In  this  type  of  conditional  sentence,  viz.,  contrary  to  fact,  varia¬ 
tions  from  classical  Latin  appear  as  follows  in  the  D.  C.  D.  of 
Augustine. 


96 


1.  Past  contrary  to  fact  with  the  imperfect  subjunctive  in  both 
protasis  and  apodosis. 

quae  omnia  procul  dubio  nobis  tribuerent,  si  iam  vel  illis  clareret 
nostra  religio,  vel  ita  eos  a  sacris  sacrilegis  prohiberet,  I,  36. 
Illas  theatricas  artes  diu  virtus  Romana  non  noverat,  quae  si  ad 
oblectamentum  voluptatis  humanae  quaererentur,  vitio  morum 
inreperent  humanorum,  II,  13. 

Tunc  enim  tota  Urbe  in  hostium  potestatem  redacta  solus  collis 
Capitolinus  remanserat,  qui  etiam  ipse  caperetur,  nisi  saltern 
anseres  diis  dormientibus  vigilarent,  II,  22. 

Aliud  adicio,  quia,  si  peccata  hominum  illis  numinibus  displicerent, 
ut  offensi  Paridis  facto  desertam  Troiam  ferro  ignbusque 
donarent,  magis  eos  contra  Romanos  moveret  Romuli  frater 
occisus,  III,  6. 

Si  ergo  tutores  essent  Romanae  felecitatis  et  gloriae,  tarn  grave  ab 
ea  crimen  Saguntinae  calamitatis  averterent,  III,  20. 
quae  ilia  civitas  pertulit  vel  ad  eius  imperium  provinciae  perti- 
nentes,  antiquam  eorum  sacrificia  prohibeta  fuissent;  quae 
omnia  procul  dubio  nobis  tribuerent,  si  iam  vel  illis  clareret 
nostra  religio  vel  ita  eos  a  sacris  sacrilegis  prohiberet,  IV,  2. 
Cur  ipse  Romulus  felicem  cupiens  condere  civitatem  non  huic 
templum  potissimum  struxit  nec  propter  aliquid  diis  ceteris 
supplicavit,  quando  nihil  desset,  si  haec  adesset?  IV,  23. 

Cf.  also  I,  36;  II,  2;  III,  15;  IV,  7,  15,  28;  VI,  2;  VII,  27;  XVI, 
11;  XVII,  4,  12. 

The  following  passage 10  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  imperfect 
subjunctive  in  protasis  and  apodosis  designating  repeated  action 
in  past  time,  and  action  continuing  into  the  present : 

Xeque  enim  utrumque  demonstraretur  in  omnibus,  quia,  si  omnes 
remanerent  in  poenis  iustae  damnationis,  in  nullo  apparet 
misericors  gratia;  rursus  si  omnes  a  tenebris  transferrentur 
in  lucem,  in  nullo  appareret  veritas  ultionis,  XXI,  12. 

Cf.  also  XVII,  11. 

2.  Past  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentence  with  protasis  in  the 
imperfect  instead  of  the  pluperfect  subjunctive, 
si  humanum  genus  ante  bella  Punica  Christianam  reciperet  dis- 
ciplinam  et  consequeretur  rerum  tanto  vastatio,  quanta  illis 

10  Dod’s  translation  lias  this  noted  as  a  pluperfect  subjunctive. 


bellis  Europam  Africamque  contrivit,  nullus  talium,  quales 
nunc  patimur,  nisi  Christianae  religioni  mala  ilia  tribuisset, 
III,  31. 

In  the  following  passage  the  protasis  still  comes  under  (2)  but 
the  apodosis  is  that  of  a  past  simple  condition : 

nostrum  fuit  utique  .  .  .  attendere  et  videre  nequaquam  illos  ad 
hanc  artem  perventuros  fuisse,  qua  homo  deos  facit,  si  a  veri- 
tate  non  aberrarent,  si  ea,  quae  Deo  digna  sunt,  crederent,  si 
animum  adverterent  ad  cultum  religionem  divinam,  VIII,  24. 

3.  Past  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  with  apodosis  in 
the  imperfect  subjunctive. 

Classical  Latin  permits  the  combination  of  pluperfect  subjunc¬ 
tive  in  protasis  and  imperfect  in  apodosis,  provided  present  time  is 
designated  by  the  imperfect.  Past  time,  however,  is  clearly  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  following : 

Si  autem  a  diis  suis  Romani  vivendi  leges  accipere  potuissent,  non 
aliquot  annos  post  Romam  conditam  ab  Atheniensibus  mutua- 
rentur  leges  Solonis,  II,  16. 

Quam  si  tacuisset,  aliter  hoc  factum  eius  ab  aliis  fortasse  defende- 

retur,  YI,  4. 

Nam  parasitos  Iovis  ad  convivium  eius  adhibitos  si  mimus  dixisset, 
utique  risum  quaesisse  videretur,  YI,  7. 

Nullam  Iacob  legitur  petisse  praeter  unam,  nec  usus  plurimis  nisi 
gignendae  prolis  officio,  coniugali  iure  servato,  ut  neque  hoc 
faceret,  nisi  uxores  eius  id  fieri  flagitassent,  XYI,  38. 

4.  Present  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  with  pluperfect 
subjunctive  in  the  protasis. 

Classical  Latin  permits  the  combination  of  imperfect  subjunctive 
in  apodosis  and  pluperfect  in  the  protasis,  provided  the  time  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  protasis  is  past.  In  the  following  passage,  present 
time  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  pluperfect  subjunctive : 

Hoc  si  nostris  temporibus  accidisset,  rabidiores  istos  quam  sua  illi 
animalia  pateremur,  III,  23. 

In  the  following  passage  Augustine  uses  the  pluperfect  for  past 
action  still  continuing  into  the  present : 11 


11  No  such  example  is  presented  by  Lane. 

7C 


98 


si  Christianis  temporibus  accidissent,  quibus  ea  nisi  Christianis 
hominibus  tamquam  crimina  obicerent?  Ill,  31. 

In  a  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentence  in  classical  Latin, 
verbs  denoting  necessity,  propriety,  possibility,  duty,  and  the  sec¬ 
ond  periphrastic  conjugation,  when  used  in  the  apodosis,  may  be 
put  in  the  imperfect  or  perfect  indicative. 

Augustine,  in  the  apodosis  of  a  contrary  to  fact  conditional 
sentence,  uses  the  second  periphrastic  conjugation  with  the  plu¬ 
perfect  indicative  for  the  imperfect,  thus : 

Virtutem  quoque  deam  fecerunt;  quae  quidem  si  dea  esset,  multis 
fuerat  praeferenda,  IV,  20. 

5.  Future  simple  conditional  sentences. 

Rarely  in  classical  Latin  do  we  find  the  present  tense  of  the 
apodosis  combined  with  a  future  in  the  protasis.  In  general  the 
future  appears  in  both  protasis  and  apodosis. 

Augustine  in  two  passages  uses  the  future  in  the  protasis  and 
the  present  in  the  apodosis,  thus : 

Timor  vero  ille  castus  permanens  in  saeculum  saeculi,  si  erit  et  in 
futuro  saeculo  .  .  .  non  est  timor  exterrens  a  malo  quod  acci- 
dere  potest  .  .  .  XI Y,  9. 

Quibus  si  respondebimus  esse  animalia  profecto  corruptibilia,  quia 
mortalia,  .  .  .  aut  nolunt  credere  .  .  .  XXI,  2. 

x.  Nisi. 

Nisi  forte  introduces  an  objection  or  exception,  usually  an  ironi¬ 
cal  afterthought.  It  was  rare  before  Cicero’s  time  and  regularly 
took  the  indicative. 

In  the  D.  C.  D.  four  instances  occur  of  nisi  forte  introducing  an 
ironical  thought  with  the  subjunctive,  thus: 

Nisi  forte  quispiam  sic  defendat  istos  deos,  ut  dicat  eos  ideo  man- 
sisse  Romae,  III,  15. 

Nisi  forte  quis  dicat  more  spongiarum  vel  huiusce  modi  rerum 
mundare  daemones  amicos  suos,  IX,  16. 
nisi  forte  inde  se  nobis  auderent  praeferre  Platonici,  X,  30. 

Nisi  forte  quis  dicat  id,  quod  Dominus  ait  de  diabolo  in  evangelis, 
XI,  13. 


CHAPTER  X. — 'SUMMARY. 


Ecclesiastical  Latin,  as  we  have  said  before,  has  for  its  basic 
content  the  sermo  plebeius  of  the  Roman  people,  and  we  accord¬ 
ingly  expect  to  find  therein  many  of  the  similarities  and  variances 
in  style  and  syntax  which  distinguish  the  language  of  the  common 
people  from  the  language  of  classical  Latin  literature. 

The  variations  have  been  overestimated  however.  On  examina¬ 
tion,  ecclesiastical  Latin  is  found  to  varv  from  the  Latin  of  the 
classics  in  no  more  marked  degree  than  the  works  of  the  poets  and 
prose  writers  of  the  Imperial  epoch. 

From  this  syntactical  study  of  the  D.  C.  D.  we  find  that  Augus¬ 
tine  represents  the  characteristics  of  African  Latinity  of  the  fourth 
century  A.  D.  In  summary,  the  variations  from  classical  Latin 
as  found  therein  are  the  following : 

In  the  gender  of  substantives  Augustine  shows  a  strict  adherence 
to  classical  norms.  In  some  instances  he  uses  a  plural  for  a  sin¬ 
gular  term  and  vice  versa.  Like  the  writers  of  his  age  Augustine 
is  fond  of  abstract  terms  using  them  sometimes  instead  of  par¬ 
ticiples,  at  other  times  for  adverbs..  In  case  usage  of  nouns  he 
deviates  from  classical  norms,  but  no  more  so  than  the  writers  of 
the  Empire.  Augustine  differs  from  classical  authors  to  a  similar 
degree  in  his  use  of  adjectives.  While  his  irregularities  in  the  use 
of  comparison  are  few,  they  exist  sufficiently  to  mark  him  as  a 
writer  of  ecclesiastical  Latin.  Very  frequently  Augustine  uses 
unus  for  alter,  an  irregularity,  common  in  Christian  Latin, 
which  shows  lack  of  precision  in  the  use  of  the  language  of  the 
period.  Pronouns  appear  much  more  frequently  in  the  D.  C.  D. 
than  in  classical  prose.  The  fineness  of  discrimination  in  regard 
to  pronouns,  so  prevalent  in  classical  Latin,  is  lacking.  Is,  hie,  ille, 
and  ipse  are  used  indiscriminately  and  confusion  exists  in  the  use 
of  iste  .  .  .  ille,  .  .  .  ille  .  .  .  ille,  and  ille  .  .  .  iste  for  hie  .  .  . 
ille  in  contrasts.  The  indefinite  pronouns  are  used  interchangeably. 
Aliquis  the  indefinite  pronoun  of  affirmative  sentences  occurs  in 
negative  statements,  and  quisquam  the  indefinite  of  negative  propo¬ 
sitions  appears  in  affirmative  statements.  The  pronominal  adjective 
tantus ,  tot  and  quot  are  replaced  by  tam  magnus,  tam  multi  and 
quam  multi.  Besides  unus,  as  noted  above,  alius  is  frequently 
substituted  for  alter,  and  alter  for  alius.  In  the  use  of  adverbs, 
Augustine  in  the  D.  C.  D.  does  not  differ  from  other  writers  of  the 

99 


100 


Christian  period.  He  uses  unde  for  quomodo ;  adhuc  for  etiam 
turn;  ceterum  for  sed, ;  scilicet  for  id  est;  magis  for  potius ;  utrum 
for  ne  or  num  and  nec  .  .  .  quidem  for  ne  .  .  .  quidem. 

In  our  study  we  find  in  the  verb  more  than  in  any  other  part  of 

speech  the  greatest  number  of  irregularities.  Classical  precision  is 
notably  absent  in  the  use  of  the  tenses.  The  future  perfect  is 

substituted  for  the  simple  future;  the  perfect  infinitive  is  sub¬ 

stituted  for  the  present  infinitive;  the  pluperfect  is  used  for  the 
perfect  or  imperfect  and  in  many  instances  tense  sequence  is  ne¬ 
glected.  Augustine  conforms  to  classical  Latinity  in  his  use  of 
the  imperative  mood.  He  uses  the  indicative  in  indirect  questions ; 
in  relative  clauses  of  characteristic;  after  quod  and  quia  for  the 
accusative  and  infinitive  in  indirect  statements;  and  with  forsitan , 
quamvis  and  in  causal  relative  clauses.  One  instance  of  the  sub¬ 
junctive  with  non  occurs  for  a  prohibition.  He  uses  the  third 
person  singular  subjunctive  of  at  sum  with  unusual  force,  first  as 
an  intensive  optative  subjunctive,  and  second  as  an  equivalent  of 
tantum  abest  .  .  .  ut.  The  subjunctive  is  also  used  with  quam- 
quam,,  and  with  quod  and  quia  for  the  accusative  and  infinitive  in 
indirect  statements.  Augustine  also  uses  a  modifying  adjective  or 
its  equivalent  with  a  substantive  infinitive.  The  infinitive  is  used 
to  express  purpose;  with  adjectives  which  regularly  take  a  supine 
in  classical  Latin;  instead  of  the  genitive  of  the  gerund;  and  with 
verbs  which  were  not  known  to  he  so  used  in  the  period  of  classical 
literature. 

In  the  use  of  participles,  Augustine  in  the  H.  C.  H.  allows  him¬ 
self  much  liberty.  The  present  participle  appears  in  all  cases  and 
both  numbers  as  a  substantive;  it  occurs  as  a  predicate  with  a 
copula;  it  takes  the  place  of  a  postquam  clause;  and  is  used  in 
place  of  the  ablative  of  the  gerund.  The  future  participle  is 
used  as  a  substantive  and  as  an.  attributive  adjective;  in  some 
instances  it  designates  purpose.  The  perfect  passive  participle 
form,  as  it  were,  a  periphrastic  conjugation  with  the  verb 
habere.  The  gerund  and  gerundive  are  much  favored  by  Augustine 
in  the  D.  C.  D.  as  well  as  by  other  ecclesiastical  writers,  and  are 
used  with  a  much  greater  frequency  than  in  classical  Latin.  As 
for  conjunctions,  Augustine  does  not  hesitate  to  substitute  one  for 
another,  wherever  there  is  a  general  similarity  of  meaning.  In 
many  instances  prepositions  appear  where  a  single  case  form  would 
suffice;  an  extension  in  the  use  of  the  preposition,  as  well  as  a 
change  of  meaning  is  very  evident. 


101 


From  this  study  it  is  very  evident  that  St.  Augustine,  at  least 
in  the  De  Civitate  Dei,  comes  closer  to  classical  requirements  than 
any  other  writer  of  the  same  period.  While  deviating  to  a  certain 
extent,  principally  for  psychological  reasons,  yet  on  the  whole  he 
very  closely  approaches  classical  Latin. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


a  or  ab,  79,  SO. 
abesse,  5S. 
ablative,  10,  17. 
absit,  53. 
abstract  terms,  9. 
absque,  85. 
absum,  53,  100. 
accusative,  11,  12. 
ad,  12,  71,  72,  73. 
ad  extremum,  19. 
adhuc,  36,  37,  100. 
adjectives,  19. 
advena,  5. 
adverbs,  36. 
aliquis,  31,  32. 
alius,  32,  33,  35,  99. 
alt  are,  7,  8. 
alter,  24,  35,  99. 
alterutrum,  27,  2S. 
amare,  43. 
amicus,  19. 
ante,  75. 
apud,  73,  74. 
aut,  40. 

aut  .  .  .  aut,  41. 
aut  .  .  .  vel,  41. 

benedicere,  11. 
bestia,  19. 
bonus,  19. 

capillus,  6,  7,  9. 

cases,  10. 

catacombs,  2. 

causa,  69. 

cavere,  11. 

ceterum,  37,  38,  100. 

characteristic  clauses,  49. 

circa,  77. 

comparison,  23. 

compellere,  5S. 

concrete  terms,  7. 

conditional  sentences,  95. 

conjunctions,  8S. 

consulere,  11. 

consularis.  19. 

creatrix,  6. 

credere,  1 1 . 

crimen,  17. 

crinis,  6,  7,  9. 

cum,  10,  74,  84. 

cur,  40. 

dare,  59. 


dative,  15. 
de,  80,  81,  82,  S3, 
de  cetero,  19. 
difficilis,  70. 
dignus,  57. 
dubitare,  59. 
dum,  91. 

e  or  ex,  13,  83,  S4. 
eram,  44. 
ero,  44. 
esse,  3. 

essem,  46,  47. 
etiam  turn,  36,  37,  100. 

facere,  42,  43,  58. 
facilis,  70. 
felix,  14,  15. 
fera,  19. 
fidelis,  19. 

forsitan,  51,  52,  100. 
fortasse,  51,  52. 
fortassis,  51,  52. 
fueram,  44. 
fuerim,  46. 
fuero,  44. 
fui,  44. 
fuisse,  45. 
fuissem,  46. 
fungi,  11. 
future  perfect,  45. 
futurus,  64. 

genitive,  12,  13,  14. 
gerund,  66,  67. 
gerundive,  68,  69. 
gratia,  69. 

habere,  3,  65,  100. 
hie,  26,  28,  29,  30.  37,  99. 
honestum.  19. 
huius  modi,  12. 

ibi,  37. 
idoneus,  57. 
igitur,  36. 

ille,  26,  28,  29,  30,  99. 
imperative,  49. 
in,  12,  74,  85,  86,  87. 
in  proclive,  19. 
indicative,  49. 
indignus,  57. 
indulgere. 


104 


infinitive,  56,  57. 

propter  quae,  77. 

inludere,  11. 

propter  quod,  77. 

inter  nos,  27. 
inter  se,  27. 

purpose,  56. 

inter  vos,  27. 

- 

quamdiu,  90. 

interdicere,  11. 

quamlibet,  94. 

invicem,  27. 

V 

quam  multi,  34,  99. 

is,  28,  30,  99. 

quia,  3,  48,  50,  55,  88,  89,  100. 

iste,  26,  28,  29,  30,  99. 

quaerere,  58. 

iucundus,  70. 

quam,  34. 

iustus,  19. 

1 

quamquam  54,  91,  100. 

iuxta,  76. 

quamvis,  54,  91,  100. 

latere,  11. 

quantus,  34. 

licet,  94. 

quare,  40. 

locus,  6. 

quicumque,  32,  33. 
quippe  qui,  52. 

magis,  38,  39,  100. 

quis,  31. 

magnus,  34. 

1 

quispiam,  32. 

memoria,  74. 

quisquam,  31. 

mendicare,  11. 

quisque,  33. 

mirabile  dictu,  70. 

quisquis,  33. 

moderatrix,  5. 

quo,  90,  93. 

mood,  48. 

t 

quod,  3,  48,  50,  55,  88,  89,  90,  100. 

multus,  24. 

quo  modo,  36,  100. 
quoniam,  3,  48,  50,  55,  88. 

ne,  39,  41,  52,  59,  100. 
ne  .  .  .  quidem,  41,  100. 

quot,  34,  99. 

nec  .  .  .  quidem,  41. 

reddere,  15. 

nisi  forte,  98. 

redire,  15. 

noli,  53. 

1 

restituere,  15. 

nolite,  53. 

reus,  17. 

nomen,  17. 
non,  53,  100. 

rider  e,  11. 

num,  39,  41,  100. 
numerals,  24. 

, 

scilicet,  38. 

secundum,  78. 
sed,  100. 

ob,  69,  76. 

sequence  of  tense,  47. 

oblivisci,  11. 

sermo  urbanus,  1. 

omnino,  41. 

-s. 

sermo  plebeius,  1,  2. 

omnis,  24. 

si,  95. 

sim,  46,  47. 

participle,  10,  61. 

r 

similis,  15,  16. 

passive,  42. 

sine,  32. 

paucus,  24. 

•  -y 

singulus,  24. 

peccatrix,  5,  6. 

sordes,  6,  7,  8. 

per,  10. 

substantives,  5. 

perfect  infinitive,  45. 

sum,  44. 

persuadere,  11. 

- 

supine,  57,  69. 

plenus,  16,  17. 
plurimus,  24. 

supplicare,  11. 

* 

post,  75. 

tarn  magnus,  34.  99. 

postquam,  63,  100. 

tarn  multi,  34,  99. 

pot  are,  43. 

tantummodo,  41. 

potius,  38,  39,  100. 

tantum  abest,  53,  54,  100. 

prisca  latinitas,  1,  2. 

tantus,  34,  99. 

pro,  69. 

tense,  44,  47. 

prohibitions,  52. 

timere,  59,  60. 

pronouns,  26. 
propter,  69,  77. 

* 

tot,  34,  99. 

propterea,  41. 

ullus,  31,  32. 

unde,  36,  100. 
undique,  36. 
unus,  24. 

ut,  48,  59,  92,  93,  100. 
ut  quid,  40. 
uterque,  33. 
utique,  41. 
utrum,  39,  40,  100. 
utrum  .  .  .  an,  40. 


105 

valde,  39. 
vel,  40. 
venturus,  64. 
vereri,  59,  60. 
verum,  19. 
victrix,  5. 
visu,  70. 
voice,  42. 


VITA. 


The  author  of  this  dissertation,  Sister  Mary  Columkille  Colbert, 
was  born  March  16, 1884,  in  Cappoquin,  County  Waterford,  Ireland, 
and  pursued  her  elementary  and  intermediate  studies  in  her  native 
town  under  the  direction  of  the  Sisters  of  Mercy.  In  1900  she 
entered  the  Congregation  of  the  Sisters  of  Charity  of  the  Incarnate 
Word,  San  Antonio,  Texas.  She  received  her  A.  B.  degree  from 
the  Catholic  University  of  America  in  1912  and  in  the  same  year 
began  graduate  work,  receiving  the  M.  A.  degree  in  1913.  While 
pursuing  graduate  work  she  attended  the  lectures  of  Dr.  Deferrari, 
Dr.  Wright  and  Dr.  Bolling,  in  Latin  and  Greek  literature;  Dr. 
Shields  in  education ;  and  Dr.  Turner  in  philosophy. 


